01-17-2013, 01:54 AM
[quote Charina]however, I still do not see an answer of why? correlation does not equal causation!][/quote]
Perhaps not, but the bottom line remains this: perch have NOT filled the void for lake trout....but rainbow trout have. If perch are not being used as a prey source for lake trout, and trophy splake numbers have declined since perch numbers have risen (which they have), what conclusion should I come up with? And, chub numbers have declined as a direct result of perch predation. What more evidence do I need? Had perch never been illegally stocked into the reservoir would this have ever happened? The answer is a definitive no.
As for your questions on whether the papers refer to studies or not, all I can say is this: What in the heck is a study then? Honestly? The Utah DWR has been monitoring fish lake closely for over 100 years now...with this monitoring they have stocking numbers, mark recapture numbers, gill netting samples, growth rates of tagged and fin-clipped fish, forage fish numbers, diet samples, angler exploitation numbers from creel surveys, among other numbers. Now, if that is not a study, then what in the heck is? The truth is that the DWR has more information and knowledge on what is going on up there than anyone else. Sorry, but I don't need a peer reviewed publication on a study to know that studying is going on and valid scientific conclusions can be made.
Also, in regards to the weeds...the weeds--eurasion millfoil if I am not mistaken--were also most likely brought to the lake by fishermen to the detriment of the fishery. Here, again, we can just throw up our arms and say the weeds are there and there is nothing we can do, or we can try to educate fishermen as state game agencies have done across the US and tried to stop the spread of the weed.
I do, in fact, agree that the perch proliferation and dramatic change the fishery has seen over the past 20-30 years is due to a combination of factors including the weeds; however, the fact still remains that the perch PROBLEM--and it is a problem--would never have occurred had some well-meaning ill-informed fishermen not dumped perch in the lake.
As for those who believe that it is just opinion as to whether the lake is better with or without perch, all I can say is this: the perch population has stunted. If your fishing enjoyment would not be better with a healthy population of trout over a stunted population of perch, you need to get out and fish more! And, honestly, like PBH said, how many good lake trout fisheries do we have in Utah? How many trophy splake fisheries do we have in Utah? By way of comparison, how many stunted perch fisheries do we have in Utah?
I think it is great that people can go up to Fish Lake and catch loads of little perch and then take them home and eat them...but sorry, I just don't buy into the idea that the lake is better with those stunted perch. Call that an opinion or whatever you want, but biologically I know it isn't true!
[signature]
Perhaps not, but the bottom line remains this: perch have NOT filled the void for lake trout....but rainbow trout have. If perch are not being used as a prey source for lake trout, and trophy splake numbers have declined since perch numbers have risen (which they have), what conclusion should I come up with? And, chub numbers have declined as a direct result of perch predation. What more evidence do I need? Had perch never been illegally stocked into the reservoir would this have ever happened? The answer is a definitive no.
As for your questions on whether the papers refer to studies or not, all I can say is this: What in the heck is a study then? Honestly? The Utah DWR has been monitoring fish lake closely for over 100 years now...with this monitoring they have stocking numbers, mark recapture numbers, gill netting samples, growth rates of tagged and fin-clipped fish, forage fish numbers, diet samples, angler exploitation numbers from creel surveys, among other numbers. Now, if that is not a study, then what in the heck is? The truth is that the DWR has more information and knowledge on what is going on up there than anyone else. Sorry, but I don't need a peer reviewed publication on a study to know that studying is going on and valid scientific conclusions can be made.
Also, in regards to the weeds...the weeds--eurasion millfoil if I am not mistaken--were also most likely brought to the lake by fishermen to the detriment of the fishery. Here, again, we can just throw up our arms and say the weeds are there and there is nothing we can do, or we can try to educate fishermen as state game agencies have done across the US and tried to stop the spread of the weed.
I do, in fact, agree that the perch proliferation and dramatic change the fishery has seen over the past 20-30 years is due to a combination of factors including the weeds; however, the fact still remains that the perch PROBLEM--and it is a problem--would never have occurred had some well-meaning ill-informed fishermen not dumped perch in the lake.
As for those who believe that it is just opinion as to whether the lake is better with or without perch, all I can say is this: the perch population has stunted. If your fishing enjoyment would not be better with a healthy population of trout over a stunted population of perch, you need to get out and fish more! And, honestly, like PBH said, how many good lake trout fisheries do we have in Utah? How many trophy splake fisheries do we have in Utah? By way of comparison, how many stunted perch fisheries do we have in Utah?
I think it is great that people can go up to Fish Lake and catch loads of little perch and then take them home and eat them...but sorry, I just don't buy into the idea that the lake is better with those stunted perch. Call that an opinion or whatever you want, but biologically I know it isn't true!
[signature]