Provo River Shock Today

[TooeleGuy]

I helped out with the shock of the river today. I expected the process to be harder on the fish. Most of them swam away quickly after the shock wore off. I did definately see some of the biggest fish I've ever seen in the Provo. There were also alot more suckers and whitefish than I ever expected. Overall I learned alot about where the fish hangout and the true size of the fish that we dont catch.

[wildnative]

So are you as convinced as the DWR personnel that the Provo fish are in bad shape, stunted and otherwise unhealthy?

[Grizz]

Overall I learned alot about where the fish hangout and the true size of the fish that we dont catch.


what's this "we" shit? I ain't French.

peace

[Lonnie]

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=1979283

[wildnative]

In all the biologists found some really good sized fish according to KSL.
Amazing what a year or two of letting the place settle down after all the reconstruction work. Of course, the sampling they took during the reconstruction process wasn't affected by the reconstruction or continued poor water quality it was just too many fish so they were stunting.

Letting the bait regulations take hold downstream have really helped the upper river!

[TooeleGuy]

Excuse me I meant "fish that I dont catch" As for the question. The chief biologist explained that some of the fish we saw, 26-28 inchers should have be several pounds heavier. They are disappointed with the girth of the fish. They stated over and over that if people would keep more of the 12-14 inch fish that these big guys would gain tons of weight. Too many fish is not a bad problem to have but on occassion in the future I am definately going to keep some fish. After seeing what I saw today, I suggest everyone do the same. When people give you the evil eye or make comments tell them about this study.

[jdubya]

After seeing what I saw today, I suggest everyone do the same.

All because they offer you the Kool Aid doesn't mean you have to drink it!

[FishOn!]

Overall I learned alot about where the fish hangout and the true size of the fish that we dont catch.

So, what was your observation on where most of the big ones hang out? Undercut banks? Submerged trees and the like? Deep holes? All of the above? I fished right against a submerged tree one time and all I know is that I had two big fish on and both ran me straight into the tree and broke me off no problem.

[PowerBaitHeppy]

I I did definately see some of the biggest fish I've ever seen in the Provo.



The chief biologist explained that some of the fish we saw, 26-28 inchers should have be several pounds heavier.

Dang. There must be some nice fish in the Provo now days!

I actually questioned these comments. So, I made an inquiry with the "chief biologist". His reply?


I went through all of the data sheets from yesterday and the longest BRN we measured was 19.5" (496 mm) we had a few white fish and suckers that were bigger. Without analyzing the data, things look pretty similar at the White Bridge and Johnson Mill survey stations as they have in the past."

26-28 inch fish? I certainly hope that was a typo. The biggest fish you've ever seen in the Provo? I hope your Provo River experiences have been few and far between. Typical fisherman: exageration!

[TooeleGuy]

Well I'm calling BS now. I fish that river everyday and I believe I know what 19.5 inches looks like and I tell you right now many of these fish were bigger than that.

[Cary]

Um... Your dealing with family bizinis here, TG.

[wildnative]

They measure them during the survey. I would imagine they would have the actual measurements and weights of the trout.

So my question Tooele is this: based on you seeing 26-28 inch trout. Do you think the DWR is trying to hide this data to misinform the public so they can carry out their own aganda?

That is why I always say, I am happy to catch 14-16 inch fish anytime. I realize that a 14 or 16 inch trout is a really good trout. Pull out a measuring tape and check it out.

[Utah DaveII]

i've shocked that river and the lower 5 times with the the dwr and I have yet to see a fish anywhere near 26-28". The biggest fish has been around 21" and came off the lower provo.

Even if a special reg river is doing what it is suppossed to do (produce good numbers of fish over 15"), the fish will generally top out at 20-22".

[Wyoming2utah]

Even if a special reg river is doing what it is suppossed to do (produce good numbers of fish over 15"), the fish will generally top out at 20-22".

You are probably right...but, I do know of some streams where fish above 22" are not only uncommon but abundant. Not coincidentally, these are also streams where natural recruitment is severly limited and fish numbers are relatively low.

[Utah DaveII]

I know streams like that as well. One in particular I am thinking of right now.

[chanceb]

Well I'm calling BS now. I fish that river everyday and I believe I know what 19.5 inches looks like and I tell you right now many of these fish were bigger than that.
I wish I could fish everyday. That's a long drive everyday from Tooly :)

[TooeleGuy]

I am fortunate enough to guide on the Provo. For this opportunity I do make the drive from Tooele everyday. Perhaps the term exaggeration is accurate on 26 to 28. I do wish that I could post pictures here because a buddy of mine was taking the big boys out of the barrels and I was taking pictures. He actually dropped one of them back in the river while doing this. We saw some very large fish roll up out of the thick brush. I will agree that most of the fish we saw were not of this calliber but there were 5 or 6 out of a 150 yard stretch that were well over 20 inches. My point in starting this thread was to emphasize that there are in fact alot of large fish hidden away in the brush that the typical angler never sees. I would suggest that anyone who has the time help out with one of these studies in the future. I found it very educational and will change my approach to the river based on where I saw the big fish coming from.

[PowerBaitHeppy]

m Tooele everyday. Perhaps the term exaggeration is accurate on 26 to 28. I do wish that I could post pictures here because a buddy of mine was taking the big boys out of the barrels and I was taking pictures. He actually dropped one of them back in the river while doing this.

The big one always gets away, eh?

Send the pics to me. I'll post 'em.

[wildnative]

So...this really gets at me. I want to know why the DWR would lie and tell us there are no large fish on the Provo, that they are all stunted, and we need to allow open regulations?

And if guides are selling us on the idea that they know the river better than us, therefore, we should pay them to get us into fish (that are 26-28 inches), and then we find out that they are surprised at the findings of a shock survey---What does all of this mean?

[Orvis2]

So...this really gets at me. I want to know why the DWR would lie and tell us there are no large fish on the Provo, that they are all stunted, and we need to allow open regulations?

And if guides are selling us on the idea that they know the river better than us, therefore, we should pay them to get us into fish (that are 26-28 inches), and then we find out that they are surprised at the findings of a shock survey---What does all of this mean?



That somebody is full of sh*t....

[SnakesOnAPlane]

Aberlour?
Come on, man.
Sack up.

[Grizz]

Aberlour?
Come on, man.
Sack up.

I 2nd that. I've seen some crazy shit outa the 'ol Provo. In fact, I have three or four Classic Rapala's from the depths of her mighty current & I've witnessed the maiming blow that comes from such a destructive tool. Designed & fabricated by a sadistic fisherman. Who, by chance, could have become a very proficient angler with flies, leaving his hapless victims with nothing more than a small hole in their lip & a big tap on the ass. Instead of the dreaded inverted mandible syndrome, so familiar in these hollowed and hallowed holes that we call our "home waters".

peace

[chanceb]

Aberlour?
Come on, man.
Sack up.
My nutts are big enough. I go to Yoga 3 times a week too.

[Marty]

I question the results. I know there is not many but come one no fish over 20”. I know of three caught in the last week with one being close to 23”. I am not sure what the DWRs agenda is but I am sure it has something to do with opening up the whole river to anything goes. Who cares if the fish are only 12 to 14, I would rather have lots of 12 inch fish than just a few big ones. The number of fish should at least match the number of anglers per mile. My vote would be to tell the state to leave it alone, let it rehabilitate from the construction. The Provo and its browns has survived for the 27 years that I have been fishing it with little help from the DWR, I would hate to see anything change.

[PowerBaitHeppy]

I question the results. I know there is not many but come on, no fish over 20”?

You should question the results. Maybe you should participate next time as well.


No one said that there aren't any fish over 20". However, there wasn't a trout over 20" collected during the sample the other day. Knowing how efficient an electrical current running through water is (it isn't biased), I trust those surveys much more than I have ever trusted the word of a fisherman!


Conspiracy theorists....

[Wyoming2utah]

I just want to see pics of the fish tooly is talking about...where are they? Send them to me...

[PowerBaitHeppy]

W2U has a good point. People can claim the DWR to have some super-secret hidden agenda with reasons for hiding these abnormally huge trout in the Provo River, and fishermen can sit here and claim to catch 20"+ trout from the Provo frequently -- but where is the proof?

Start posting some pictures of these behemoth trout of the Provo. The DWR can't find them using electricity, but fishermen using #32 micro midges are? Something is fishy here...

[Utah DaveII]

was Nova's brown that was shown on the outdoors show a month or so ago. Jerry, can you post that picture here.

I think most flyfisherman are really interested in catching lots of 13" to 18" inch fish that they subsequently call 15"-22" fish.

I think even if the size of fish has stayed the same for the river as a whole. I think the perception is that the fish are bigger on the river this year. I believe that this is a direct result of a lot of bigger bugs being available for the larger fish as those populations recover from reconstruction.

[Marty]

PBH been there done that, have no interest.

Shocking is not 100% effective and has little to no effect on the larger fish. I guess I am confused. Is the DWR trying to manage the Provo as a trophy fishery and if so why. All I am hoping for is that they don’t have a super-secret hidden agenda and that they leave the river alone. They took a third of the river and gave it to the meat fisherman, what’s next, if we don’t kill some 12 incher so the river can grow some 20 inchers they take the rest away from us. I get the feeling they are going to take it away from us anyway. It’s turning into a theme park and the fly fisher’s days are numbered.

[Grizz]

PBH been there done that, have no interest.

Shocking is not 100% effective and has little to no effect on the larger fish. I guess I am confused. Is the DWR trying to manage the Provo as a trophy fishery and if so why. All I am hoping for is that they don’t have a super-secret hidden agenda and that they leave the river alone. They took a third of the river and gave it to the meat fisherman, what’s next, if we don’t kill some 12 incher so the river can grow some 20 inchers they take the rest away from us. I get the feeling they are going to take it away from us anyway. It’s turning into a theme park and the fly fisher’s days are numbered.

Sorry Marty, but who is "us"? Fisherman? or Fly-Fisherman. I belive the guy hucking hardware or bait, has just as much right to utilize the public resource. We all own it, all of us.

peace

But, I do agree that baitfisherman wear spandex, whine like little girls & don't know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to fishing....

;-)

[PowerBaitHeppy]

PBH been there done that, have no interest.

Shocking is not 100% effective and has little to no effect on the larger fish.

To the contrary, larger fish are MUCH more affected by electricity. Small fish are by far harder to shock.


You are correct about how effective it is. It is no where near 100% effective. However, it is much, much more effective than hook and line.


Is the DWR trying to manage the Provo as a trophy fishery? No. They want a healthy fishery. Stunted (wait a minute, I thought we were talking about 26-28" fish?) 12" brown trout that are reproducing like crazy is hardly a healthy fishery. Regulations to protect those trout isn't necessary. Opening it up to the "meat" fishermen has had NO negative affects on the fish population.

Can you tell me exactly what has been taken away from you? Are you no longer allowed to fish the Provo? I was under the impression that things are more liberal now, but you sound as if things are more restrictive.

[TS30]

Utah Dave and W2U, I was just thinking about that same stream as I read this....what was it's name and GPS coordinates again? :)

On the size of fish in the L-Provo, I used to fish it a few times/week. The number of people is what cooled me off to it, not the fish size.

I think it was 3 years ago I watched my bro-in-law pull out a 20" rainbow ( very healthy) and 21" brown (very skinny) on consecutive casts. Those two fish also happen to be the only 2 fish I've ever seen over 20" out of the LP.

I've caught a good amount in the 16-18" range, and maybe a couple that have pushed close to 20". But most are 12-14 inches with a good portion being 15-16" that I pulled out of there. So the statements that they were pulling a lot out in that range makes sense. Although I would expect to hear of at least a few major hogs on a study like this.

PS-on the exaggeration side, a simple way to make very quick and accurate measurements is to just mark white out lines on your rod at different lengths. It has worked for me very well. I used to call a 15" trout 18-19 because they just seem a lot bigger. But now I can usually get it within an inch on my guesses. Takes practice though and an actual measuring tape/device.

[Marty]

Griz agreed bad analogy and I was including the gear guys when I wrote that. But does someone that chooses to fish with bait have the same entitlement to a self renewable resource that works only because of special regs and catch and release.

PBH anytime you take away a fly and lure reg and open it to anything goes I feel is a loss. I have been fishing the Provo for almost 40 years. I can remember watching my dad and grandpa drifting eggs on the lower and filling his creel in no time. The river was fished out a month after the opener and anglers had to wait for the next truck load of fish before it got good again. I grew up hearing “they are planting the river tomorrow we better get up there” all summer long. It was a rainbow fishery back them and none of the fish had fins. I am sure there were some unhappy people when they put the regulations on the upper part of the river but it turned into a world class fishery. They may not have taken my right to fish but they did take away a purer fishing experience. The stretch has been trashed. There are bait cans, beer cans and trash all over. Bait guys will sit in on spot and never move (they are almost as bad as nymphers). I don’t care that they are taking fish but I do care about them not taking care of the resource. Need I go on.

It would have been nice to do their little experiment with the regs on a different stretch. Nothing like a fresh run of lake fish to throw everything off.

I would rather catch a bunch of stunted fish in a more pristine surrounding that a few big ones caught between the trash.

[Wyoming2utah]

But does someone that chooses to fish with bait have the same entitlement to a self renewable resource that works only because of special regs and catch and release.


It would have been nice to do their little experiment with the regs on a different stretch. Nothing like a fresh run of lake fish to throw everything off.


Why wouldn't someone who "chooses to fish with bait have the same entitlement to a self renewable resource"? That statement sounds pretty dang self-righteous to me...at least explain your position. I still can't figure out what you mean by "works only because of special regs and catch and release"...isn't the Provo pretty much unchanged since the regulation change? What about fisheries that work only because of the lack of special regulations? Does that mean fly fishermen or C&R fishermen shouldn't have the same "entitlement" to them?

Their "little experiment" is being conducted on several different segments of river including some below deer creek dam...from what I understand, the results are pretty similar despite fish coming up from the lake.

[Marty]

W2U I forgot the question mark. I was asking does someone that chooses to fish with bait have the same entitlement to a self renewable resource that works only because of special regs and catch and release? Do you want to read it again and give me an answer instead of flaming me for being self righteous.

The Provo has changed from put and take to natural reproduction.

And the “little experiment” I was referring to was making a section a river that has three different runs of lake fish plus the resident fish the testing ground for the new reg. Seems like the data would be flawed.

[Wyoming2utah]

I know, I know...when fishermen don't like the results, the data is flawed. I have heard that argument before. If the river is full of old small skinny fish, doesn't that show a problem?

Because the dynamics of the river have changed form put and take to natural self-sustaining, perhaps this is an even bigger reason for a regulation change...after all, if the river was put and take that might demonstrate a need for protecting fish. Now that harvest isn't a problem, why protect the fish?

[wildnative]

Why protect the fish? Because the Humane Society has a different point of view than you.
If we subscribed to all of your silly notions, then we should have a section of river just for them to wander around and observe trout undisturbed by any angling at all.

Why is it so hard for a fisheries biologist to admit to error?
They've been doing nothing but experimenting with our waters for years. They've made some bad mistakes. I'd like to write them a ticket for every stupid mistake they've made. That would put some money back in their coffers.

If we subscribed to your silly ideas that all is well and we should relax the regulations, then we shouldn't even need a fisheries biologist at all. Just take away the laws and let the survival of the fittest take place.

[Wyoming2utah]

If we subscribed to your silly ideas that all is well and we should relax the regulations, then we shouldn't even need a fisheries biologist at all. Just take away the laws and let the survival of the fittest take place.


"All isn't well" that is just it...Robert, why is it that you believe the fisherie's biologist made an error after hearing about tooele's report and not tooele? It seems you don't understand what fisheries managers do...they manage populations to try and keep them healthy. The provo river doesn't have healthy fish...it has lots of small old skinny fish--unhealthy ones. Protecting them will not help!

[Marty]

The DWR has been asking us to keep fish out of all of Blue Ribbon waters for years, even back in the so called glory days. You tell me it’s to grow bigger fish, I am calling BS. The fish have been the same size for as long as I have been fishing the river. Have I seen a decrease in the number of larger fish, yes I have, but to say it is our fault for not keeping fish is total BS. Here are a couple of ideas to think about. How many big fish are lost to poaching? It’s always been a problem but what has the F and G done about it, not a thing. You can’t walk 10 feet on the lower without stepping on a worm can. There is no enforcement and don’t tell me it’s a money thing. I have been a cop for almost as long as I have been fishing the river, I know how it works. When was the last time you got checked on the river or better yet when was the last time you saw a brown shirt with a gun on his hip on the river? The DWR dose a poor job on the enforcement end of thing, it’s sad to say but most of the enforcement is done by fisherman. The last time I cared enough to take some action I stopped 3 guys with stringers full of big fish it took 45 minutes for an officer to respond and he was a part timer from the state park. He issued the guys a verbal warning and let them keep the fish. Both the MP and the LP get raped of its big fish every day, better enforcement bigger fish. Here is another thought, how many big fish do you see dead on the bottom after the spawn. The last time I fished the MP it reminded me of fishing Alaska. There were dead fish on the bottom and dying fish swimming next to the bank covered in the white fungus. It was so bad I tried to find a flesh fly in my vest to see if it would work. Why do you think they close the Madison during the spawn. Lose all the spawner what do you have left? Answer 12 to 14 inch fish. The Prove maintained itself for many years, big fish ate the little fish and there was no need to harvest fish. It is my opinion the DWR dose a poor job and they have no clue on how to manage a blue ribbon trout fishery. You say the river is overpopulated, OK then why dump more fish into it. Diversity you say, well that’s just weak and for the record they have been trying bring back the cutt for 25+ years. It seems the DWR’s goal is to provide Utah angler’s a fish they can catch. The DWR needs to start managing the human factor, until they do you will never see improvement of the quality of the FISH. Fish the Upper for a day and I think you will change your thoughts on this subject. Utah dave you sound like you are a fan of the DWR, for me that’s as bad as claiming to be a BYU fan.

[Lewiskm3]

Utah dave you sound like you are a fan of the DWR, for me that’s as bad as claiming to be a BYU fan.[/QUOTE]

C'mon Marty, nothing could be THAT bad.

[MickG]

This is actually a very insightful thread, and i personally have enjoyed reading both sides of the debate. Lets not hijack it and turn it into the BYU, UTAH debate again.

[chanceb]

Utah DWR has no interest in having a "big fish" i.e. trophy trout fishery. They want "family" fisheries which is a very nice cop out.

[wildnative]

"All isn't well" that is just it...Robert, why is it that you believe the fisherie's biologist made an error after hearing about tooele's report and not tooele? It seems you don't understand what fisheries managers do...they manage populations to try and keep them healthy. The provo river doesn't have healthy fish...it has lots of small old skinny fish--unhealthy ones. Protecting them will not help!

I'm not talking about just the Provo. I do believe that the Provo, Ogden, Blacksmith and many other waters are overpopulated with brown trout. I was just tired of hearing that it's always us catch and release guys who have made it a problem. And it seems you and PBH just want to bash on us all the time.

I do get sick of all the guides claiming there are 20+ trout around every corner and that they are the only ones who can catch them, but they will "guide" you into one for the right price.

Let me ask you this: Why do we only here about this problem in Utah? Can anyone site reference to other states who are having the same problem?

Let's use South Fork of the Ogden as another example. It is open regulations. It has never been protected with C&R to my knowledge. It receives somewhat heavy pressure from all types of anglers, but the trout are not any bigger. I would say, the trout in that river on the average are actually smaller than those on the Provo even thought there are less trout per mile. The river is full of large stoneflies yet the fish remain on the small end. Why? The dynamics that you want are there.

[Wyoming2utah]

Let me ask you this: Why do we only here about this problem in Utah? Can anyone site reference to other states who are having the same problem?

Let's use South Fork of the Ogden as another example. It is open regulations. It has never been protected with C&R to my knowledge. It receives somewhat heavy pressure from all types of anglers, but the trout are not any bigger. I would say, the trout in that river on the average are actually smaller than those on the Provo even thought there are less trout per mile. The river is full of large stoneflies yet the fish remain on the small end. Why? The dynamics that you want are there.

I don't think for one second PBH or myself blame C&R fishing for stunted fish; we blame stunting on spawning habitat that is too good and fish that are exceptionally able to reproduce. I think you totally misunderstand what we are trying to say. We believe that protecting stunted fish with special regulations doesn't make sense...we believe that unnecessarily restricting how a fishermen fishes on a water where C&R doesn't improve the quality of fish doesn't make sense. However, what we do believe is that if enough fish are harvested, quality could improve.

To answer your question about other states having the same problem, that is easy. But, instead of listing a bunch of streams in other states, I will simply report a study done in California:
www.biologie.uni-muenchen.de/ ou/ecology/aquat_e/documents/diehl18.pdf

Also, fishermen really like the fish per mile comparison when looking at streams...however, this is not a good comparison. The Provo River is much larger than the South Fork of the Ogden, and therefore, should have more fish per mile. A better comparison between the rivers would be their biomass or pounds per acre of fish. Even though there may be less fish per mile, you could still have a stunting problem. Or, without knowing the South Fork of the Ogden, I would probably say that there are other environmental factors limiting the size of the fish. Remember that biomass in a fishery remains relatively unchanged...the biomass can be made up of lots of small fish or relatively fewer large fish, but the total pounds/acre does not change. In the case of the Middle Provo, restoration work has been done to try and improve or increase biomass...but such work can be relatively fruitless if the increased biomass is comprised of relatively small unhealthy fish. For example, the pounds/acre of fish for the Fremont River between Johnson Reservoir and Mill Meadow Reservoir is one of the highest in the state, but the fish aren't very big; they are stunted. ON the other hand, UM Creek grows larger, healthier fish despite having a lower biomass or pounds/acre of fish.

[jdubya]

Remember that biomass in a fishery remains relatively unchanged...the biomass can be made up of lots of small fish or relatively fewer large fish, but the total pounds/acre does not change. In the case of the Middle Provo, restoration work has been done to try and improve or increase biomass...but such work can be relatively fruitless if the increased biomass is comprised of relatively small unhealthy fish. For example, the pounds/acre of fish for the Fremont River between Johnson Reservoir and Mill Meadow Reservoir is one of the highest in the state, but the fish aren't very big; they are stunted. ON the other hand, UM Creek grows larger, healthier fish despite having a lower biomass or pounds/acre of fish.

Ok, by that rationale then by increasing the potential biomass of the provo via reconstruction we simply added to the problem. Instead we should limit nutrients in the river, thus decreasing food sources, and concomitantly decreasing fish counts. Your hypothesis leads directly to an equation that a starving river will give rise to larger fish.

Which also means, in practical terms, that the level of harvest of fish on the Provo will have NO net effect on the size/numbers of the fish: instead that is set by the relative abundance (or lack thereof) of nutrients in the river.

[Wyoming2utah]

Ok, by that rationale then by increasing the potential biomass of the provo via reconstruction we simply added to the problem. Instead we should limit nutrients in the river, thus decreasing food sources, and concomitantly decreasing fish counts. Your hypothesis leads directly to an equation that a starving river will give rise to larger fish.

Which also means, in practical terms, that the level of harvest of fish on the Provo will have NO net effect on the size/numbers of the fish: instead that is set by the relative abundance (or lack thereof) of nutrients in the river.


We did add to the problem by improving habitat...but the real change came when the flows were changed during winter months. When theose minimum flows were acquired, nothing was left to control reproduction of brown trout. The problem now is that you have an uncontrolled population that is being protected from harvest. Decreasing nutrients to the river and food sources won't decrease fish counts; it will just make for even unhealthier fish. No, starving fish will NEVER give rise to larger fish because even starving fish reproduce. What you fail to understand is that fish populations don't starve out...

What you are trying to assert is that the restoration took nutrients away from the river and that the fish health will rebound...the problem is that there are too many fish for the available nutrients to feed. Taking those nutrients away will only exacerbate the problem. To return the fishery to a healthy population, something must control fish numbers...

The abundance of nutrients in a river also directly correlates to biomass. The bottom line with the provo river is that there are too many fish to have a healthy population.

[ByteMe]

...but the real change came when the flows were changed during winter months. When theose minimum flows were acquired, nothing was left to control reproduction of brown trout. The problem now is that you have an uncontrolled population that is being protected from harvest.

So, what should be done to decrease recruitment? Should we require decreased flows to leave some eggs high and dry or have fisherman stomp on some redds?

[Wyoming2utah]

I am not sure I know the answer to that question. I know some have mentioned ramping up the flows to try and kill fry...personally, I believe if you increase the flows, all you do is make more habitat available for young fish. I think leaving some eggs high and dry could help...but at what level is reducing the flows going to do this? At what level will reducing the flows kill all the eggs and will we lose all recruitment of one year of fish? I think this is the trick with playing with flows...

My earlier link to a study analyzing brown trout densities and fecundity in California was bad....try this one:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2120/is_3_80/ai_54545720/pg_1

[PowerBaitHeppy]

Marty -- you keep talking about "spawners" and from your comments I am assuming that when you think of a "spawner" you think of a large fish. That is the whole problem with the Provo River. Those 12-14" fish are the "spawner". Those fish are reaching sexual maturity at a much smaller size than they should be.

I don't believe that fishermen alone can harvest enough fish on the Provo to make a difference. I also don't believe for one second that there is a need to protect the fish in the Provo. They don't need it. They are reproducing faster than what fishermen can harvest out. That doesn't warrant protection.


RAW -- I haven't bashed on C&R fishermen once in this thread.

Why do you only hear of this problem in Utah? It must be because of your own bias. There are cases of stunted fish populations all across the U.S. Heck, even the Norwegians know what happens when there are too many fish (or, should I say they know the positive effects of removing fish from a population?) http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/abstract/114044051/ABSTRACT?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0

What about Lee's Ferry?

[Cary]

I think fishing the middle P is a lot of fun, especially if I dont have to share the water with toe-tappin bait slingers.

[Marty]

OK my bad, but I was just trying to make a point. I cut and pasted a post I made back in 2006. Nothings changed……..

And I should have deleted the part about BYU – I love that school and all of there fans.

[MickG]

This is great. PBH I am following along but I would like some back ground as far as Lee's Ferry. So I understand the reasoning for the question. Does it relate to the management?

[PowerBaitHeppy]

Lee's Ferry is in the same boat, but with rainbows instead of brown trout. Fish are reaching sexual maturity at a size smaller than what is healthy. Reproduction continues to happen regardless of the limited food supply. The result is lots and lots of 12-16" trout, with very few reaching 20"+.

the management doesn't matter. Even with liberal regulations, anglers still don't keep fish.


FWIW -- I have a hard time thinking that anglers alone can control populations of fish through harvest alone.


Marty mentioned fishing the Provo for 40 years. Like W2U eluded to in a previous post, 30 years ago winter water releases from Deer Creek and Jordanelle weren't an issue. Then, with the dams in place, winter water releases severely limited natural recruitment. Today, minimum flows are sufficient for successful recruitment. The limiting factor has been eliminated which has resulted in fish reproducing at a rate that fishermen cannot control alone. The result? Well, the electroshocking on the Provo speaks volumes! You can't hardly find a trout over 20".

[TS30]

I'm still waiting for Dave or W2U to help me "remember" that little stream with the 26 inchers in it. It's right there on the tip of my tongue.........Come on, help me "remember."

[Wyoming2utah]

The one I am thinking of is simply too "sandy" according to some...the silt would simply kill all the aquatic insect life and decrease the usable nutrients fish would have to grow on.

[wildnative]

Come on PBH, you know you and your brother love nothing more than to stir things up and make us look stupid.

What about the very important point that Marty brings up about the poachers taking the larger fish. And I would throw fly fishermen in that catagory too. I know there are fly fishers who take fish for dinner (not nearly enough) and they will take the largest fish. I've seen it happen on the Ogden all the time. It is the biggest fish that end up going home. How does this play into things?

Maybe it is the brown trout that is our problem? Maybe another trout would not reproduce as sucessful?

[PowerBaitHeppy]

RAW -- Of course people are going to keep the largest fish they catch to take home. But, how often is illegal harvest really happening? And, what harm is it really doing to the river? There are so many fish in that river that as soon as a 20" fish is taken from it another fish quickly takes its place. Fish growth is extremely plastic. They are not like mammals. As soon as the environment allows, a fish will grow to fill a void. They also will shrink if the environment is not suitable for their current size.

So, in all honesty, how many fish are being poached from the Provo? Enough that it is making an impact? Heck, legal harvest isn't making an impact! Why would illegal harvest be making such a large impact? Is there truly more illegal harvest happening than legal harvest? If so, is it actually happening to the extent that it is damaging the population? I'm afraid that population samples taken by the DWR would show that this is not a problem. But, of course, that's only if the DWR doesn't have some super-secret right-wing hidden agenda that they are keeping from us!


the problem with the Provo is not enforcement. It's numbers of fish. Too damn many of them!


I think you are right. Another trout almost assuredly would not reproduce as successfully as brown trout.

One thing to remember is that brown trout are not native to our waters. In nearly all cases of species overpopulation it is a non native species. Native species almost never overpopulate.

[PowerBaitHeppy]

Come on PBH, you know you and your brother love nothing more than to stir things up and make us look stupid.


Nope. I don't like making people look stupid. I don't have to make people look stupid, they do that themselves. When a thread pops up like this that claims numerous 26-28" fish being shocked from the Provo -- and it just so happens that the "chief biologist in charge" is my very own brother -- and I know that the stated fish sizes are WRONG, I'm not going to sit around and not say something.



but, I do enjoy good discussions (like this one).

I'm not going to try to make you or Marty or anyone else "look stupid". I'm not smart enough to make anyone look stupid. But, I can't help it if you make yourself look stupid ;)


It's about time there was something worthwhile to discuss on this site. It beats the heck out of gear discussions.

[cheech]

It beats the heck out of gear discussions.

So did Shopko stop selling flies?

[wildnative]

So if a fish has to live 5 or 6 years to get to the 20 mark and you kill it, how long does it take for the next trout to get to 20 inches?

If a trout is growing at a speed of 3 inches per year and it stops growing because it's brothers and sisters are eating some of its food, then how many brothers and sisters need to be killed to insure that said brother can keep growing at the specified rate to be 20+ inches by the time it reaches sexual maturity?

Sounds like a question from the SAT test.

So you are saying we're stupid???

[PowerBaitHeppy]

and I have the answer. Give me a minute...

[PowerBaitHeppy]

If you haven't read this paper, you should. Read the whole thing. It's good.


http://www.wildlife.utah.gov/blueribbon/4-step_plan.pdf (1.5mb pdf file...)


"Fishermen often underestimate how fast trout can grow and overestimate the time it takes to grow a trophy trout. Large trout are most often a function of fast growth rather than old fish." (page 4)


Fact or myth? (page 8)

"...the assumption that released fish are predestined to become large with old age is false."




The reason it takes a fish in the Provo 5 or 6 years to reach 20" is because of overpopulation. The system is screwed up, which prevents that area of maximum fish growth to happen. A 30 year old Lake Trout might weigh 30lbs. This would make a 1 pound per year average. However, anyone with a head on their shoulders should now that in all reality, that fish might have taken 3 years to gain the first 8 lbs. The fish may have stayed at 8 lbs for the next 22 years. Then, at age 25 that fish might finally convert to a strictly fish diet and pack on 22 lbs in the next 5 years. Fish growth is plastic. When conditions are right, growth is FAST!

[PowerBaitHeppy]

So you are saying we're stupid???

I never said that. The only person at this time (in this discussion) that I think might be stupid is the dude that claimed that the DWR was shocking up 26-28" fish.

[Utah DaveII]

Producing big fish in a river is a factor of a lot of things. Big fish water needs to have the following things:
1) lots of food, 2)pockets of deep water to winter large fish 3)lots of room for large fish to establish feeding territories. The bigger the fish the bigger it's feeding territory needs to be. Each river is different on what it lacks or needs to get bigger fish.


I actually believe that Brown trout have been subjected to harvest for over 100 generations and are actually adapted to some harvest. Now that we subject Brown trout to zero harvest it really is an unatural condition, in my opinion. The problem I have is where should the harvest take place. Back when catch and release took hold Colorado, studied the impacts of Special regs on 17 waters. The data came back that the average size of fish was greater in 15 of those 17 waters. Rainbow populations would tend to rebound to higher numbers of fish. Under heavy harvest brown trout numbers stayed high, but the size was low with the exception of a few large fish. When special regulations came in on the South platte river the number of fish over 15" jumped dramatically. The number of truly large fish, over 20" did drop just a little bit. in a sense the fish would stop growing around 20". The fish are stunted at 20". In my view this is what I think most fisherman want. The middle Provo is not far from this type of fishery as it is.

One of the biggest issues that I have is that they have two fisheries (Ogden, Blacksmoth Fork) that are overpopulated with brown trout that have open regs and it has not lead to a size increase in brown trout. There was no evidence that this regulation change would lead to bigger fish on the provo. It was a grand experiment that pissed a bunch of people off over nothing. the lesson is if you have a fishery and it is the second most valuable fishery in the west and over 90% of the people want to keep the regs they way they are just keep them. Special regs are as much a quality of fishing experience issue as they are a conservation issue for many people.

Since we ahve yet to solve a problem like this with brown trout. Perhpas we need to think about these issues diffferent. My proposal on the MP would be to have a 2 fish limit for fish between 10-15" and an 8 fish bonus limit for fish under 10".

[PowerBaitHeppy]

One of the biggest issues that I have is that they have two fisheries (Ogden, Blacksmoth Fork) that are overpopulated with brown trout that have open regs and it has not lead to a size increase in brown trout. There was no evidence that this regulation change would lead to bigger fish on the provo.


However, there is plenty of evidence to show that these regulations are NOT HURTING the fishery either. With or without the regulations, nothing changed. Why limit, if it isn't helping anything?

[wildnative]

I don't think many of the guides like to put in their ads, that you will be sharing the water with all types of anglers.

There is a perception that Blue-Ribbon means fly fishing only.

I don't think the guides are very happy when they walk down the trail to their honey hole and find out that wildnative is camped in the hole with his family eating Kentucky Fried Chicken, with five poles propped up on forked sticks, and a stringer of trout flopping around in the shallow water.

They really give me looks when I ask if they have any Gray Poupon?

[Marty]

If there are two many fish why not just take them out. They do it with the salmon and steelhead runs. Just a thought.

Who wants bigger fish? I am sure if you took a poll you would find that the majority of those that use the Provo River would say they don’t care, they just want to catch fish. If you take away the numbers the river will become harder to fish. Right now because of the amount of pressure if it were not for the numbers most would go home skunked. The Provo is not easy why, make it harder.

What’s all this talk about fish any way? I have been taking insect samples every year for as long as I have been fishing the Provo. The Green Drakes and a few of the larger bugs had totally disappeared from some of the stretches. Yes I may be stupid but I am not blind and yes the fish are stunted but only because of the destruction of their habitat. Let’s not tell anybody will silted the river, let’s just tell everyone there is too many fish.

You want a chance at a big fish on the MP right now. Go to the bait section, there are all kinds of big fish moving up from the lake right now. But let’s not take that into consideration, let’s just tell them the quality of the fish is because of the new regs.

If the F & G came out and said the Provo is blue ribbon, will be managed as blue ribbon and there is no plan to change it to a bait fishery I would support them 100% in efforts to improve the fish and the river but I don’t trust them. So when I hear there are too many fish, too many fish, let’s send the baiters in there to fix the problem, well I have a problem with that. The Provo is much like the Green. Millions of fly fishing dollars are spent each year just in Heber alone. Change the regs and it will have an impact on a number of dependant economies.

And what’s up with little survey man, collect more flawed data for the conspiracy.

[PowerBaitHeppy]

If there are too many fish why not just take them out. They do it with the salmon and steelhead runs. Just a thought.

That's a band aid fix. It would take long for the numbers to quickly multiply exponentially again, and you're right back at square one (unless you mean to take the browns out completely).

The habitat is simply too good. There needs to be a way to limit recruitment consistently -- water releases from Jordanelle in the winter, etc.



Who wants bigger fish? I am sure if you took a poll you would find that the majority of those that use the Provo River would say they don’t care, they just want to catch fish.

Don't kid yourself. Given the chance to go catch five 18" fish, or five 14-16" fish, which one would you take?

The issue here isn't necessarily size. The DWR isn't trying to "increase size" -- they are trying to increase fishery health. It's an unhealthy population. Fish are reaching sexual maturity at sizes smaller than what they should. That's not healthy. If increased sized is a by-product of a healthy fishery, why would you not want it?

[PowerBaitHeppy]

And what’s up with little survey man, collect more flawed data for the conspiracy.

The survey guy? He's there because of TU. He's a part of the 5 year study that the RAC and all the Provo River fishermen asked for when the regulation was changed. He's doing exactly what you guys asked for.

At the end of the 5 years, his survey stats will be very important information for the study paper that will be compiled. It should contain some good info.


For the life of me, I just can't come up with a reason that the biologists involved with the Provo would have for fudging the data.

[tightline]

If they really believe there are way too many browns in there they should simply say there is no harvest limit on browns under 15" Everything over 15" cannot be harvested. Then as the brown numbers start to dip they can plant the hell out of the rainbows that will never overpopulate. Then one guy wants 100 12-14" browns to feed his whole family more power to him. So long as he isn't bait fishing.

We would have bigger browns and more variety what more could you want. I have yet to catch any skinny rainbows out of there. For some reason they can put on the pounds and do better with the available food and habitat.

So where is the problem? I surely wouldn't care if the majority of less than 15" browns disappeared. I shouldn't hurt the guides business either.

[PowerBaitHeppy]

tightline -- that's a great idea.


The only problem is harvest. You can open up the limits as high as you want -- the problem is getting fishermen to take those fish.

The overall mentality of most fly fishermen (myself included) is to go fishing and release the majority of the fish. Keeping brown trout isn't exactly something I want to do! I don't blame those that frequent the Provo for not keeping and eating brown trout.


This is where bait fishing can possibly help. Mortality is higher with bait fishing -- maybe not harvest.


It's been mentioned a couple times, but the biggest factors here are water releases. The popularity of fly fishing, and the increased awareness of catch and release has increased significantly in the last 20 years. Coinciding with this popularity was a change in water release policy for the winter months from dams like Jordanelle and Deer Creek. Those releases have increased recruitment. This is (at least I believe) the biggest contributing factor to the stunting brown trout. There needs to be a way to control, or limit, recruitment. The brook trout lakes of the Boulder Mountain are no different. The lakes that have ideal spawning habitat and year-round flowing springs are full of stunted brook trout. The lakes that suffer to winter-kill, summertime draw-downs, and poor springs are the lakes that produce the big brook trout.

[Cary]

I surely wouldn't care if the majority of less than 15" browns disappeared.

the only problem there is a 15 inch trout are the guide's 18 - 20 inch trout.

[Marty]

I guess my real issue is prior to Jordanelle the average size of fish was well below 12 inches. After they finished the dam and open the Middle to the public the fishing was fantastic. Lots of fish and lots of big fish. As soon as they started moving dirt the river seemed to die, both the fish and the aquatic insects. They changed the dynamics of the river from deep runs to wide riffles and pools. You can’t walk with out making a mess of the water below you. There are silt bars that will suck you shoes off. The high water in the spring does nothing to clean the river bed, it just pushes the silt around. They took away most of the big fish habitat and replaced it with sallow riffles that make great homes for rainbow and small browns. Browns are a bank fish and they took the banks away. I have even seen a rise in water temps. With the creation of a slower moving river with more surface area it only makes sense that it is not global warming that has caused the temps to go up. Fishing pressure also plays into it, heck if I worked out as much as a Provo river brown gets work out I would be 50 pounds lighter. Yes the fish may be stunted but you would have to take a scale sample to know that. The browns right now are chunks that are fired up and a whole lot of fun to catch. So in the end its all about the spawn and higher water temps, a silted stream bed, fewer aquatic insects, more anglers and a totally changed environment has had no impact on the browns. Ok then where do we go from here? Open it to bait?

I would rather see it killed then to have it trashed by baiters.

[DrewTrout]

Good hell. I take a year hiatus from this joint, come back, and everything is exactly the same. EXACTLY!

1. Stunted fish
2. BYU/Utah
3. Global Warming
4. Politics

The DWR must be the biggest collection of idiots in the world. They are going to invite public participation for data collection (shocking) and then under-report the size of fish they surveyed. That's logical.

Later.

[wildnative]

Welcome back Drewtrout.

They have to under report the size to compensate for the guides who over report it. This whole thing started with a guide participant of the shock survey claiming he saw 26 and 28 inch brown trout!

[chanceb]

Just goes to show you cant trust the dwr or most provo guides

[tightline]

I assure you harvest would not be a problem if you said there was no limit for browns under 15". The fill the freezer types would come clean house. It just isn't worth their time for two fish under 15". Which is the typical regulation that would end up in the proc and the DWR would be wondering why their is still no harvest. Hell if the browns out of their tasted any good I would even think about filling the smoker and inviting over some friends. It would be a nice change instead of all that red meat.
Two fish under 15" isn't worth the hassle of killing something then dragging the dead bodies around in the car, having to clean them, only have enough to feed one person etc. etc. etc. I very rarely kill any trout and it is not because I am some purest. It is just not worth the hassle unless I am backpacking and really need the protein.

[TS30]

I assure you harvest would not be a problem if you said there was no limit for browns under 15". The fill the freezer types would come clean house. It just isn't worth their time for two fish under 15". Which is the typical regulation that would end up in the proc and the DWR would be wondering why their is still no harvest. Hell if the browns out of their tasted any good I would even think about filling the smoker and inviting over some friends. It would be a nice change instead of all that red meat.
Two fish under 15" isn't worth the hassle of killing something then dragging the dead bodies around in the car, having to clean them, only have enough to feed one person etc. etc. etc. I very rarely kill any trout and it is not because I am some purest. It is just not worth the hassle unless I am backpacking and really need the protein.

That's actually a pretty decent point, and I have never really looked at it that way. Maybe they do need to look at it and at least raise the limit? I'm not sure it would encourage a lot of "non-keepers" to start keeping, but it would allow the "keepers" to keep more, so either way the goal is achieved.

[«°Ñøvã°»]

That's actually a pretty decent point, and I have never really looked at it that way. Maybe they do need to look at it and at least raise the limit? I'm not sure it would encourage a lot of "non-keepers" to start keeping, but it would allow the "keepers" to keep more, so either way the goal is achieved.

Ive pondered this myself. Really 2 under the reg's isnt even enough to feed a family. I take em home at times but they end up as compost. I say raise the limit to 4 but thats JMO.