04-10-2011, 03:51 AM
My inflation adjusted 2 cents on a few points FWIW.
1. Re"They would survive in Yuba. They would survive in Utah Lake. The problem in Utah Lake is that they would eliminate the June Sucker. And that is the crux of the issue."
That is exactly right. Since both gizzard shad and June suckers are open water plankton eaters, Gizzards would just about finish off the June suckers were they to get established in UL. The irony is that Yuba is one of the FEW places where shad might make sense. However, the Federales are so concerned about bucket biologists that they will never approve of a transplant and will act aggressively if the bucketheads start trying to move the gizzards out of Willard. Think about that the next time one wants to spout off that bucket biology isn't so bad.
2. Walleyebob said " And as the big predators are taken out, the carp will just take over."
Haven't the carp already pretty much taken over? Sure the big pike eat a few and can sustain themselves, but it is a myth that they are able to CONTROL carp.
3. Mike4cobra wrote" I think the problem is not letting nature take its course."
I think that few of us would really like the end result of "nature taking its course". That would be almost all carp and maybe a small residual population of the other species not worth fishing for. Like it or not, both warmwater and coldwater anglers are beneficiaries of management to NOT let nature take it course.
4. I don't suppose there can be harm in transplanting perch at this point, but to be honest, my impression is if the previous transplant failed epically as it did, with all of the effort going into it, a new one or an annual one wouldn't be any different.
Between water drawdowns, carp, a new IPP unit coming on line and demanding more water, and other problems, Yuba has a lot of issues. I'm glad the DWR is trying to do what it can, and trust them to come up with better answers for the lake than the armchair biologists on BFT.
[signature]
1. Re"They would survive in Yuba. They would survive in Utah Lake. The problem in Utah Lake is that they would eliminate the June Sucker. And that is the crux of the issue."
That is exactly right. Since both gizzard shad and June suckers are open water plankton eaters, Gizzards would just about finish off the June suckers were they to get established in UL. The irony is that Yuba is one of the FEW places where shad might make sense. However, the Federales are so concerned about bucket biologists that they will never approve of a transplant and will act aggressively if the bucketheads start trying to move the gizzards out of Willard. Think about that the next time one wants to spout off that bucket biology isn't so bad.
2. Walleyebob said " And as the big predators are taken out, the carp will just take over."
Haven't the carp already pretty much taken over? Sure the big pike eat a few and can sustain themselves, but it is a myth that they are able to CONTROL carp.
3. Mike4cobra wrote" I think the problem is not letting nature take its course."
I think that few of us would really like the end result of "nature taking its course". That would be almost all carp and maybe a small residual population of the other species not worth fishing for. Like it or not, both warmwater and coldwater anglers are beneficiaries of management to NOT let nature take it course.
4. I don't suppose there can be harm in transplanting perch at this point, but to be honest, my impression is if the previous transplant failed epically as it did, with all of the effort going into it, a new one or an annual one wouldn't be any different.
Between water drawdowns, carp, a new IPP unit coming on line and demanding more water, and other problems, Yuba has a lot of issues. I'm glad the DWR is trying to do what it can, and trust them to come up with better answers for the lake than the armchair biologists on BFT.
[signature]