Lake trout in Payette Lake

[duksnfish]

4 years seems a little extreme, especially if the don't have any idea what kind of numbers are in the lake. You would think they would base it on the numbers of lakers they catch ever year and if the numbers they are catching takes a steep decline, they stop or slow the rate they are removing from the lake. I do agree with you that it's nice to have a lake that they manage for lakers. One thing to consider is that as long as they don't wipe the laker population out, once the koke population is established they will be a really good food source for the lakers when they stop the gill netting and the lakers will come back stronger than ever, just a thought.

I agree that if they can establish a strong Kokanee population, it will be a good food source for the Lake trout. This was brought up in a conversation I had with an F&G employee. The point was also made by this employee, that these fish don't reach sexual maturity until six years of age and have such a slow growth rate, it will take a number of years for these fish to rebound in numbers and size.

---

After reading the above linked article, I could see this being exactly the reason for F&G doing the same thing in Payette Lake in an effort to protect downstream fisheries like Cascade Reservoir that are such a highly traffic kokanee  and other species fishery. Funny thing is that in 50+ years I have lived and fished here lake trout have always been a presence in Payette Lake so it is hard to see how that would ever happen.

From the people I've spoken with at F&G, there was never any concern expressed about having the Lake trout in Payette spread to other waters. The sole reason for an enacting this plan is to improve the Kokanee population. 

If this is the sole reason for removing lake trout, it is pretty lame reason/excuse. And, same goes for any place around where that is the reason given for any reduction of one species to promote another one. To me, and just my thoughts, i have heard that before from some F&G personnel with no other reason so is it just their reason or want to manage for just one species or has there been a public out cry for a certain species.  If you read the above paper article that I referenced, there wasnt many public against the lake trout just a reason by F&G yet with everything I am reading on this thread, and just like the walleye issue in Ririe that they have cried wolf about, they just dont develop. And, I am not sure they are listening to the public at any public hearings they have on fisheries meetings for comment or input into future regulations etc. I really dont think anything can be done with any of these situations as I dont think F&G is really interested in what the public does have to say on issues like this, other than to have a meeting and do nothing about it. 

So, like some others have said, not sure what the answer to any of this is, but, sure is upsetting that its all kept hush hush until someone slips up and the word gets out and then there is a scramble to put something together to try and appease those that want the most popular species in the water they are treating. Again, I hope that someone from F&G is reading all of this and will give the public some sound and reasoned information.  If not, maybe there is a way to get the F&G commission involved and cut some funding with out a good solid plan and reason for some of these activities that they are carrying on.