Post By: rdailey Posted: 8/1/2012 12:24:08 PM Points: 592
As promised the CPW reply..........................
As Area Wildlife Manager for Montrose which includes Miramonte res, I can at least comment as to what went into the decision to treat the lake and remove all SM bass. I won't even try to answer the question from waters outside my area. Bottom line was that we have a fantastic fishery that grows quality 14-16"+ rainbows in a very short time. So not only are the fish inexpensive to grow, they are delicious because they have been raised on natural foods. In ONE year the pop of SMB has gone from about 5% to more than 44% of the fish in this summer's survey. Stocking fingerling trout in a SMB water will result in most trout being eaten and the fishery declining to a fraction of what used to be.
Furthermore, there is a tremendous crawfish fishery there that folks are coming from all over to take advantage of. The SMBs will likely have a tremendous effect on the crayfish pop.
The third main issue is that SMB's will likely leave Miramonte and travel down river where native fish are found. SMB are, and have always been, a major predator and competitor with native fish.
That is a quick summary of the major issues that went into the decision to remove SMBs in Miramonte. As you can see, illegal stocking of fish can and has had enormous effects on many fisheries both financially, economically (to the community) and biologically. Much in the same way as negotiating with a terrorist, our more educated sportsmen and women want us to give them back the great fisheries that are carefully, scientifically managed for the best recreational experiences possible and not be held hostage to renegade illegal stockers who have other ideas of a fishery should be managed.
Hope that helps answer your question.
Renzo DelPiccolo Area Wildlife Manager Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife 2300 South Townsend Ave. Montrose, CO 81401 970.252.6010
I've never fished this lake and disagree with bucket biology 100% but I pose this question:
If you kill off everything in the lake, what guarantee is there that the fishery will return to what it was previously, both in regards to trout and crayfish? Seems a bit like biting off one's nose to spite the face.
Just my opinion though, I am only a recreational fisherman. I am not and dont claim to be a professional in regards to this issue. I guess we should have faith in the CPW that they truly know the best ways to manage a fishery based on science.
I believe this is the key statement here below, see parens............ They don't have screens or anything up there and it's probably a major undertaking to put them in if you wanted to.
"The third main issue is that SMB's will likely leave Miramonte and travel down river where native fish are found. SMB are, and have always been, a major predator and competitor with native fish."
The other interesting comment was no comment on other lakes. I'd assume all biologists had a common approach to management, however that lack of comment leads me to believe they work independently based on their opinions and ideas. Now certainly that is reading between the lines on my part. Interesting though.
I would think SMB have a common threat/no threat reaction. Perch threat/no threat. Whatever. It does not appear it works that way because I asked.... SMB 11-Mile, perch 11-Mile, Perch Spinney, Perch Blue Mesa..... Please define the threat.
That's where he begged off. IMO. I get where he is coming from but...... I do not see a uniform approach.... IMO.
A clear definition of "native" waters would be a good start to defining a management plan and I don't know if we have that yet, or ever will really. I think that might be what really this boils down to.
We beat this horse pretty good but here is what it was.
The one thing that really bugs me about this is that the CPW uses the native fish as a reason for exterminating species that they find undesirable. What about the trout that escape the lake and move downstream? Rainbows are just as much of a non native species as smb and from everything I've read, the bigger they get, the more their diet switches from insects to other fish. Does the CPW really think that a 14-16 inch rainbow won't eat any smaller fish it can catch regardless of species?
Reply by: TheFlyRules Posted: 8/3/2012 11:25:42 AM Points: 130
Renzo, C'mon man.
The browns hurt the rainbow and crawfish fishery, the poisoning will leave the reservoir terribly out of balance. The fish were almost as likely positioned through natural transport or a CPW error.
Why is it that every day when I see you guys you are shocking and throwing fish in a dry bucket. All the money spent on the silly removals of species by means other than angler (if so many anglers support it let them do the job Hoax) is no more than wanton waste with a new excuse or rule being made up to suit that days lack of fishery management prowess.
I am sorry but scientists never make an absolute statement without at least acknowledging historic examples of proliferation. Argh.
Reply by: NoNick Posted: 8/3/2012 11:33:54 AM Points: 31
Is this guy running for office? Sure sounds like it..
You guys bring up very valid points about non-native trout escaping into "managed" tributaries. It's a fact that big trout eat other fish- especially Browns. Their arguments just don't pass the common sense test, IMHO.
14-16" RAINBOWS???? BE STILL MY BEATING HEART! So this lake is unique HOW? Oh, and I suppose he thinks that rainbows arent predatory and don't eat crawdads? I repeat - bucket biology is illegal, for a reason. but the D.O.W. and there stance on trout is just stupid- they are cheap because we spent oodles of money in the past to establish a comprehensive infrastructure with hatcheries everywhere. Wonder of wonders- the SMB in this lake are better than cheap-they did'nt cost them anything- while poisoning the entire lake and restocking will cost a bundle- even with "cheap" trout.- we must remember that this is a government entity- they have to spend money to get the next budget approved, lets not let them snowball us with this jibberish-grrrrrrrrrrrrr.
I'm an engineer, not a biologist, but that's the point I keep trying to make poorly I guess.
I like pike, SMB, perch and diversity but without the feeding truck, or hatchery truck in other words showing up, I don't see how those fish would survive long term. Once the SMB eat the crayfish what's left to eat besides fingerling trout? We don't have that forage base like a Minnesota or someplace like that.
That's where this whole conversation just gets lost for me.
That's an interesting point, Dangly. Of course trout eat crawdads, but I'm not sure they eat them as much as bass. After all, I think we can all agree that pretty much all crawdad patterns are primarily marketed for bass fishing and other non-trout species.
Off the top of my head, I'd guess bass start eating crawdads much earlier in life, and eat bigger crawdads for a longer time. I'm totally speculating here. I'd like to see what's published on the matter...I'm sure someone on this site has some info as to how crawdad predation differs between trout and bass.
After looking at the map in my fishing guide it appears that there may be a connection between Miramonte and McPhee. Is it possible that we do not have a case of illegal stocking or bucket biology but rather the escapement of the smb from one body of water to another. Maybe at one time flooding?? I don't know and I apologize to all if this sounds stupid. Just a thought.
Yeah from 5 percent to 44 percent in a year, thats one busy bucket guy or smallies are buying little blue pills.
Or they target bass anglers for crawdad patterns because there are a lot more bass fishermen and a lot more money to be made on that angle. Aurora trout are full of crayfish. When the midges are hatching they are full of midges but then so are the walleyes, so much so it looks like they are leaking motor oil from their gills from eating the larvae.
after seeing the direct effect of poisoning other lakes in colorado the poison is a loaded gun/crap shoot should look for other methods of removal even if it would be more expensive or take a longer period of time.
It's a good thought but I'm looking at the map book also after you mentioned it. It looks like the outlet from McPhee (Delores River) heads the other way towards the Gunnison. The inlet side doesn't really connect either that I can see at least.
The inlet side does go that general direction so who knows. I see a path from McPhee to Groundhog Res. I can't really see a way from there to Miramonte but who knows. They are not far apart. Looks like ten miles or less.
I take back what I just said. Naurita Creek is the inlet to Miramonte. That hits the San Miguel which hits the Delores on the outlet side of McPhee where CPW stocks warmwater fish. That is entirely possible.
Which says to me why poison Miramonte if that whole river basin has SMB in it anyway? Its all connected, all year round flows, no dams to get past getting into Miramonte, just get out of McPhee. That is entirely possible.
come on Renzo, worried about the crawdad population but you allow commerical bubbas from alabama to come in every year and harvest hundreds of pounds of crawads, YES COMMERICAL CRAWDAD HARVEST , but we are worried about smb eating crawdad! Oh yeah these out of state guys pay like $35 for a frickin permit. Oh yeah last time i checked the san migul river connects to the dolores and colorado river, hummmm if it is such good smb habitat Im sure the millions of smb from lake powell would allready be in the river. What a waste of our money, terrorist, maybe if the cpw would pull there head out of there arses and give the west slope fisherman some warmwater fisherys the bucket birgade could take a break! I dont condone the illegal stocking, but come on guys putting RBT in evry mud puddle west of the divide is a little old!!
Thanks Bob, i was wondering when someone would pick up on the Crawfish Fishermen. They allow several commercial buggers from out of state to get those bugs and they think the smally's are going to eat more than that.
Good Grief. Renzo lost a lot of my respect with that bag of hockey letter.
Wow Aesoep's Fables has a whole new section. Once upon a time the evil smallmouth bass were eating all the crayfish, along with the commercial netters, general human population, brown trout and rainbow trout. Hear baby Rainbow Trout say somebody's been eating my crawfish and they're all goooone1
I think the real key here that Abel pointed out is CPW stocks LMB, SMB and Yellow Perch in McPhee. Delores comes out of McPhee and hits San Miguel and Naurita and dumps into Miramonte. Does the outlet of McPhee have fish screens or some other inhibitor?
Doubt it. But?
Even if the SMB caught a bucket assist, what's the point of killing iMiramonte off? Those fish have to be present in that whole basin.
Thanks for the assist. I was working for a remodeling company in Seattle. Our painter washed his tools out in the street. No big deal but our company received a call from the EPA the next day wanting to now what it was that had washed into a private pond seven blocks away. They were able to track the runoff back to the address we were working on. We were lucky no fines and it ever happened again. I feel the fisheries dept. could also trace the smb to the origin and they could possibly find out they are the responsible party here. Maybe its too easy to blame it on someone else. I know they're professionals but maybe something is being overlooked here.
How about Rilfe Gap smallies? The decline there was blamed on over harvest. Colorado Sportsman's Wildlife Fund fervently petitioned to get a protection placed on the reservoir and it was granted. The DOW agreed that angler over harvest was the reason for the depleted smb stock at Rifle.
Maybe they could call that group of anglers to arms?
What a bout a bounty? I know it sounds crazy for a bounty in CO but it is happening all over as we speak. How about 4 bucks for a Squawfish. Absolute fact.
I'd imagine as "dooms day" gets closer they will lift regulations on all species in the lake. Until then I'd imagine they are hoping anglers can significantly reduce the SMB population as to avoid the poisoning altogether. This is just speculation of course.
"Terrorist" was a very poor choice of words. I don't know the man, but in reading the statement in CONTEXT, it's clear to me that what he meant was that some people have entrenched ideas and hear words from opposition parties (in this case CPW) with a very biased and unproductive ear. He was making the point that sometimes even well-researched and well-spoken positions are lost on some people.
Again, bad turn of phrase. But I think it's pretty easy to glean his intent.
If you were offended, you were reading expecting to be offended.
I have known Renzo for to long to give a break here but I get where you are coming from. I am not the absolutist I may seem to be. I am just very respectful of science and the correct manner in which scientists are to behave with their findings and assumptions.
Reply by: rdailey Posted: 8/4/2012 12:18:02 AM Points: 592
Please allow me to explain.
The issue is "do we kill Miramonte or not".
The Endangered Species Act is a prime factor. There is a loop between McPhee, the Delores and San Miguel Rivers and Miramonte. CPW stocks LMB, SMB and Perch in McPhee. (which BTW seems like a cool lake)
So if LMB,SMB and Perch can already access these waters, why do we kill Miramonte? I do not side with CPW. In this case it does not pass the sniff test. Those fish are potentially in everything Miramonte drains into already. Because CPW stocks them into McPhee. Get it?
So when everyone is done venting and such, could we possibly finish thinking this through? Or am I asking too much?
I'm okay with being called names and whatever. Could we just think this through? If it's wrong it's wrong, okay. Fair enough?
The stupidity above is why I wanted to talk this through somewhere else.
Reply by: catchn Posted: 8/4/2012 12:25:31 AM Points: 215
Where do they get these survey #'s from? Electro shock, nets what. I have heard from fisheries managers both can be quite misleading. I understand they have to go off something but pretty extreme IMHO. Sounds to me like they are trying to discourage future bucketheads by spending some ridiculous amounts of money. I mean these kinds of statements don't sound like science backed desicions,... do they
" Much in the same way as negotiating with a terrorist, our more educated sportsmen and women want us to give them back the great fisheries that are carefully, scientifically managed for the best recreational experiences possible and not be held hostage to renegade illegal stockers who have other ideas of a fishery should be managed"
And as others have mentioned the protecting native fish, the trout they stock aren't native and are predatory but thats ok.
Reply by: PANMAN Posted: 8/4/2012 7:01:31 AM Points: 506
I understand they are fish biologists and know probably more than I will. But what effect will this poison have on irrgating waters, drinking water, and the long term effect of the resevoir itself. I do not know how the vegetation was at Clear Creek res before they poisoned it for the sucker poopulation. I have seen it since, when they lowered the water level for dam repair. There is very little vegetation. I am curious are they risking the fishery itself only to rid of a species. And why not do it by natural selection ( let the fishermen do it ). This way no risk of conatminating water or vegetation. I do not think the poison only effects fish but I do not know. And yes this might mean that trout fishermen and other fishermen might have to coexist.
Reply by: PANMAN Posted: 8/4/2012 7:29:21 AM Points: 506
I apologize for my last comment, and do not mean to offend anyone. But on the other thread I was fired up after being told it was a TROUT STATE so DEAL WITH IT. It would be nice to have a discussion on preferred species and where one lives in the state. This is not the thread for that.
Seems to me that whenever the gov't decides to intervene with controlling nature with chemicals or introducing non-native species they end up going "ooops" down the line. A perfect example is introducing Tamarisk along rivers to control erosion. I say leave it alone. No more chemicals. I will never believe it is "safe".
my last comment: the saddest part about this I learned first hand in 1999-2000, I went to D.O.W. in the winter of 98 and volunteered to write a weekly report for them based on the "fishing close to home" publication. They accepted and over the next two spring/summer/fall seasons I fished every still water body in the book ( fishing three ponds a week, I have the best wife EVER) and wrote reports on them- this is the sad part- say I was fishing a lake that was not listed as having LMB's in it, but I caught them, guess what? they had me edit my reports so that people would'nt question the accuracy of the book. I learned that D.O.W. and the state fisheries dep. have agenda's that have nothing to do with the opinions or preferances of the people who pay their bills. So if they say that they are going to poison the lake, get ready it's pretty much inevatable- these are the same people who began stocking carp to control weed growth, then wonder why the lakes get muddy- aquatic weeds act as filters in the lakes and knock down the silt- so they put tiger muskies and pike in to control carp/ sucker populations- guess what? Pike and tigers prefer 6-10" stocker trout with no survival instincts to big scaled, big carp (who by the way can clean out a Bass bed in one pass) they( d.o.w.) are they masters of the "road to hell paved with good intentions". lets hope someday they might actually send out a simple link on fishing licenses and ask us who buy them our thoughts and actually pay attention to us. I doubt many of us would support poisoning a average trout lake to get rid of smallies that seem to be thriving. just my opinion.
Well, maybe somebody can write old Renzo and ask them about Crawford. The Rangers there said this weekend they are drawing it down to poison it. I have an email into the CPW to confirm or deny, I will post the response.
Reply by: rdailey Posted: 8/10/2012 12:49:14 AM Points: 592
I was " hedging" I agree. Trying to figure it all out.
I say no. I see no purpose here nor why we would spend 400 people's worth of license money to do it. Those fish are there and killing this puddle or not will not change it. I dispute "bucket biology" as the "known" cause.
It's entirely possible stocking McPhee was the "cause". That was 2006.
We have beaten this horse to death. The comment about Lake John is correct. Every ten years like a clock.
The point isn't some pond we mostly don't fish. It is do we have a policy for managing our waters? Do we care about the "crossed eyed pike minnow"? and how much? What do we kill, when and why? Based on what rules?
This is getting old I agree. But where does it apply next?