IceShanty.com's Ice Fishing Community
Montana => Ice Fishing Montana => Topic started by: Wenger on Dec 12, 2018, 04:12 PM
-
I understand that Canyon Ferry has a trouble producing forage fish due to extreme fluctuations in water levels, so FW&P seems to be managing the reservoir based on reducing predator populations rather than increasing forage species. They solved that very problem in Peck by introducing ciscos and developing a world class fishery by doing so. They keep stocking rainbows (finless wonders) in all three reservoirs which end up in the MO at Craig afterall and they are more worried about managing another "invasive species" the brown trout in marginal habitat between Toston and Townsend. Cicos are not a river fish, they are a plankton feeding species (which would also help clean up Canyon Ferry's algae problem by utilizing the excess nutrients which feed the algae) so if they were to go over a dam so what? Imagine the benefit to Canyon Ferry and the fishing public if we could actually feed those walleyes, get salmon established in the underutilized deep water. Sadly I feel modern day biologists are too wrapped up in the PC natives only culture, and tend to ignore the wants of the folks who pay their way.
Anyone else agree or disagree? Have any of the sportsmen groups brought this up with Dan Vermillion and FW&P?
-
I've fished in 11 states plus Ontario and Manitoba, I agree FWP here is a joke. Never have I seen a lake so mismanaged. Even if they changed some regs ,doesn't matter they don't enforce anything been here 12 years never have I got checked , ridiculous. That's just my opinion
-
The common thread I hear from older biologists and retired biologists is that many of the freshly hired biologists ARENT fishermen and a they are only concerned about is restoring native species. One of the job requirements should be that they are fishermen so that they have a more comprehensive understanding of their landscape.
-
How much leeway does the FWP actually have though? If the federal government lists the bull trout or any other native species as threatened, could the FWP even pursue a management plan based on angler-preference? I'm not trying to turn this political, but regardless if you think this is a proper power of the national government or not, given the history of power in the country over the last century, I'd say that national policy is more than likely going to steer state policy...hence a focus on restoring native species.
-
I’ve never caught a native fish in canyon ferry. I’ve only been fishing it for 9 years though. Was there once a strong cutthroat trout population there.
-
The thing is that (using Cutthroats as an example as they aren't endangered) is that the non fishermen biologists will advocate for putting cutthroats everywhere including water that isn't cutthroat habitat just because they are native. The other issue the doesn't make sense to me is that not as many people spend money to pursue bulltrout but they will to pursue walleye. The talks I've had lead me to believe the the regional biologists can decided what to put where...
-
other issue the doesn't make sense to me is that not as many people spend money to pursue bulltrout but they will to pursue walleye.
It doesn't make sense to me either. I'm not saying we should or shouldn't push to restore the bull trout, but they taste great (I'm friends with avid Koocanusa anglers who fill their bull trout tag every year and know how to cook them). What's more, they were a migratory fish like salmon...I think it'd be a lot of fun to follow a seasonal run of bull trout out of Flathead Lake up to Polebridge.
The talks I've had lead me to believe the the regional biologists can decided what to put where...
Do you mean like the biologist(s) working for Region 1, 2, etc.?
-
I should of said the region fishery managers ( have flexibility they way I understand it) They supercede individual biologists I believe.
-
To be honest I think FWP is across the board not too bad. lots of good hunting habitat programs in my opinion. Now I do agree I don't like canyon ferry's management either, but that is because I love warm water fish.
I think getting involved and writing letters, and especially getting involved during the public comment times is about as good as we can do. I know trout unlimited has a large voice... Do we?
write the fisheries managers an email let em know what you think in a clear concise way, maybe if enough of us raise our concerns things will change. I have always thought FWP listens way better than the Feds. They don't seem to care at all. agree disagree just my opinion. can't wait to fish CF either way.
-
Stock your bathtub with walleye, perch and rainbows, and get back to us in five years. Like your tub, MT reservoirs are relatively sterile features and achieving a consistently balanced and flourishing fish population is darned near impossible.
-
??? The Mo as a system is very a fertile waterway. That is what causes the prolific hatches and great trout habitat below the dams. It is why we have massive algae blooms in the reservoirs, especially Canyon Ferry. The problem in Canyon Ferry is the lack of a sustainable forage base due to water level fluctuations. I am convinced that ciscos are the answer.
-
Would be cool to see something that actually enhanced a warm water fish species....
-
??? The Mo as a system is very a fertile waterway.
Fair enough. However, I meant relative to where yellow perch and walleye are native. And, it depends upon your definition of “fertile.”
-
Well perch do thrive in eutrophic lakes, but also in rivers like the Mississippi. But walleyes do indeed thrive in rocky (granite) rather "sterile" waters of the Canadian Shield, because they have ciscos as their forage base. The Mo is fed by limestone based streams and absorbs lots of silty runoff that are both full of nutrients. The MO at Craig is one of the richest rivers in MT in terms of biomass, with only the Bighorn being more nutrient laden. This is due to the reservoirs being nutrient collectors.
IF and WHEN FW&Ps wakes up to the fact that the folks who pay their way are not all interested in trout and trout only perhaps they will start managing CF for forage rather than reduction of predators. The basic issue is that CF has a link missing, that is a forage fish that utilizes the plankton that is the base component in any ecosystem. As long as perch can't reproduce at sustainable rates and walleyes do, the only real solution is to introduce forage that can reproduce and sustain the predator population. By filling that void everyone would be happy, except MT TU. If the native only folks are really serious then lets start a war on Brown Trout, carp and even perch. We all know that FW&P have been at war against walleyes in CF, Noxon and even in the MO river over the years yet the angling public wants them.
-
For anyone that hasn't seen this yet, FWP is currently running an online survey asking for feedback related to the development of a new Upper Missouri River Reservoir fisheries management plan (the current plan ends next year), which you can take fairly quickly here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/BQKPGNZ (https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/BQKPGNZ)
Question 13 in the survey specifically asks whether you think the current management plan goal of improving the forage base has been achieved, and provides a box to comment on why/why not. I talked to the Helena-area biologist just yesterday and know for a fact that he personally reads as many of the responses as he can (I believe he said they're already in the hundreds), so this is probably your best bet if you want your voice heard.
-
Would be really cool to have an active plan to bring kokanee back to the river system. kokanee would serve as a good forage base for the walleye. this won't actually happen if fwp keeps dumping fish in blindly without trying to get proper spawning habitat. i think you would have a good potential to get them to come back if you made a spawning channel, but actually improving habitat would be too logical....
-
Kokanee tend not to do well in systems where they're the middle of the food chain. The state would have to stock them and then they would just be expensive walleye feed.
-
Not sure, but pretty sure walleye fisherman make up at least 90 % of the fisherman at canyon. There are trout everywhere you go in Montana, why not focus on the walleye pop
-
For anyone that hasn't seen this yet, FWP is currently running an online survey asking for feedback related to the development of a new Upper Missouri River Reservoir fisheries management plan (the current plan ends next year), which you can take fairly quickly here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/BQKPGNZ (https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/BQKPGNZ)
Question 13 in the survey specifically asks whether you think the current management plan goal of improving the forage base has been achieved, and provides a box to comment on why/why not. I talked to the Helena-area biologist just yesterday and know for a fact that he personally reads as many of the responses as he can (I believe he said they're already in the hundreds), so this is probably your best bet if you want your voice heard.
👍Total agree Griztrax Jr. Thanks for posting this link. Everyone should fill out this survey. They may not listen but I dont think they would put this out there if they didn’t actually want our opinions.
-
The MT F&G is stocked full of "river runs through it" fly fisherman who moved here thinking the states fishery needed saving from the evil walleye.They didnt even do a spring net survey on a year they know they are going to make changes to the fishery plan,what does that tell you?Nothing will change until they are replaced,if you think your public comment meetings are going to have any effect on what they have planned or change their outlook on the economic impact of destroying a walleye fishery you are wasting your time.
-
to all you warm water species lovers go move to the Midwest. minnasoda has 10,000 lakes full of what your after. so does Wisconsin and Michigan and any other state other than Montana. the grass is always greener on the other side. trout is what makes Montana waters great...I'm not too worried if the MO has perch and walleye or cisco but I think its time for a reality check and some appreciation for what we have here. I get sick of listening to people cry about too many trout. :P
-
to all you warm water species lovers go move to the Midwest. minnasoda has 10,000 lakes full of what your after. so does Wisconsin and Michigan and any other state other than Montana. the grass is always greener on the other side. trout is what makes Montana waters great...I'm not too worried if the MO has perch and walleye or cisco but I think its time for a reality check and some appreciation for what we have here. I get sick of listening to people cry about too many trout. :P
I don't think anyone is crying about too many trout. Just that the warm water fisherman seem to get left out of a lot of conversations when 60% of the state is actually a warm water fishery. Montana F&G do treat our fisheries unevenly. Nobody is saying to get rid of trout or do anything different with them, just that warm water species need a little better treatment. Walleyes, perch and pike aren't going to invade any pristine trout streams or high mountain lakes, it's not suitable for them. But a slow moving river like the Missouri, which has historically had warm water species living in it, should be managed as such.
-
I see your point but I just need to put it in that perspective. we have a lot to be grateful for here. those pike and perch are extremely abundant on a national level and trout are the ones in the most danger and should be highest priority.
-
"to all you warm water species lovers go move to the Midwest. minnasoda has 10,000 lakes full of what your after. so does Wisconsin and Michigan and any other state other than Montana. the grass is always greener on the other side. trout is what makes Montana waters great...I'm not too worried if the MO has perch and walleye or cisco but I think its time for a reality check and some appreciation for what we have here. I get sick of listening to people cry about too many trout. :P "
Seriously? Let me guess, you moved here. Within the past say ten years right? ??? I do not think you do see his point at all.
Trout are not in danger. Certain populations of native trout are being threatened by nonnative trout. That has nothing to do with Canyon Ferry. Afterall it is two invasive species of trout that won't reproduce because the habitat is not conducive that FW&P is pushing and even stocking in favor of managing the habitat for species that will thrive and provide far more summer and winter recreation opportunities than the current debacle.
But that said, you actually are telling MT natives who do appreciate our state FAR more than the immigrants do in truth to move away? Look dude, I made a living rowing out of state fishermen around after trout for decades, from the Horn to the MO and everyplace between. I love fly fishing, I loved guiding. But I also love warm water fishing. Canyon Ferry is an artificial trout pond, They don't reproduce, the river above the lake to Toston is not trout habitat and never has been in truth. The tailwaters are also artificial trout habitat. In my years rowing folks below Holter at least 50% of the rainbows come over the dam to stock that section. We have many thousands of of miles of actual trout streams and rivers that are managed for wild fish as they should. Canyon Ferry is not one of those places. It was and could again be a world class walleye and perch fishery, which BTW a large % of MT sportsmen want it to be.
And please avoid trying to split us up as trout or walleye guys. We are all fishermen and need to respect the fact that everyone is not exactly the same. All many of us are asking is that FW&Ps wakes up and quits wasting such a potentially great resource through their biases while ignoring those who pay their way.
The first change I would want to see is accountability. Make the Commissioner an elected official rather than a political appointment and all the backroom dealing that involves. Currently TU, at a national level has more say about how we manage our fisheries than MT citizens do. Same for the extremist enviro groups who convinced the Commision NOT to have our tiny grizz hunt.
-
"to all you warm water species lovers go move to the Midwest. minnasoda has 10,000 lakes full of what your after. so does Wisconsin and Michigan and any other state other than Montana. the grass is always greener on the other side. trout is what makes Montana waters great...I'm not too worried if the MO has perch and walleye or cisco but I think its time for a reality check and some appreciation for what we have here. I get sick of listening to people cry about too many trout. :P "
Seriously? Let me guess, you moved here. Within the past say ten years right? ??? I do not think you do see his point at all.
Trout are not in danger. Certain populations of native trout are being threatened by nonnative trout. That has nothing to do with Canyon Ferry. Afterall it is two invasive species of trout that won't reproduce because the habitat is not conducive that FW&P is pushing and even stocking in favor of managing the habitat for species that will thrive and provide far more summer and winter recreation opportunities than the current debacle.
But that said, you actually are telling MT natives who do appreciate our state FAR more than the immigrants do in truth to move away? Look dude, I made a living rowing out of state fishermen around after trout for decades, from the Horn to the MO and everyplace between. I love fly fishing, I loved guiding. But I also love warm water fishing. Canyon Ferry is an artificial trout pond, They don't reproduce, the river above the lake to Toston is not trout habitat and never has been in truth. The tailwaters are also artificial trout habitat. In my years rowing folks below Holter at least 50% of the rainbows come over the dam to stock that section. We have many thousands of of miles of actual trout streams and rivers that are managed for wild fish as they should. Canyon Ferry is not one of those places. It was and could again be a world class walleye and perch fishery, which BTW a large % of MT sportsmen want it to be.
And please avoid trying to split us up as trout or walleye guys. We are all fishermen and need to respect the fact that everyone is not exactly the same. All many of us are asking is that FW&Ps wakes up and quits wasting such a potentially great resource through their biases while ignoring those who pay their way.
The first change I would want to see is accountability. Make the Commissioner an elected official rather than a political appointment and all the backroom dealing that involves. Currently TU, at a national level has more say about how we manage our fisheries than MT citizens do. Same for the extremist enviro groups who convinced the Commision NOT to have our tiny grizz hunt.
Very well said, Wenger!
-
For anyone that hasn't seen this yet, FWP is currently running an online survey asking for feedback related to the development of a new Upper Missouri River Reservoir fisheries management plan (the current plan ends next year), which you can take fairly quickly here: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/BQKPGNZ (https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/BQKPGNZ)
Question 13 in the survey specifically asks whether you think the current management plan goal of improving the forage base has been achieved, and provides a box to comment on why/why not. I talked to the Helena-area biologist just yesterday and know for a fact that he personally reads as many of the responses as he can (I believe he said they're already in the hundreds), so this is probably your best bet if you want your voice heard.
THANKS! I answered in detail in each box. IMO the biggest point is that we need proactive rather than reactive management. That to me means providing a sustainable forage base that will fill the current ecological void in CF, rather than simply trying to reduce the numbers of walleyes which has been the untenable "solution" of choice for decades now.
I also suggested that when they do have public meetings that FW&Ps not come preloaded with answers explaining why they can't do something but rather be open to the public input and seriously consider our input.
If everyone here who agree that CF is a mess answers then perhaps we can get something done.
-
you've missed the point in more ways than one. trout are in danger. there downstream threshold is moving closer all the time. obviously this is the wrong choir to be preaching to but I want some of you to see it. protecting trout is good. your warm species aren't priority and shouldn't be. we are all as non native as those fish in the bigger picture. i didn't say get rid of walleye from CF. just open your eyes a little.
-
So when exactly did you move here? Or rather do you actually live here? Young I bet too, based on the display of arrogance we all had at that age. Am I close? If not sorry....
When preaching it is wise to understand your own sermon. :tipup:
I have been guiding and outfitting for over thirty years. I have been in touch with our rivers daily for over 140 days a year in that time. I also have a degree in fisheries biology from MSU which I earned in 1977. If you want me to list all the ways that "trout" (assume you mean cutts because bows and browns are indeed thriving often at their expense) are threatened I will. But let me set you straight on the current topic. It is about the management of Canyon Ferry. If you are claiming that stocked rainbows are what Montana is about you are dead wrong. Canyon Ferry is a warm water fishery and should be managed as such, without harming our real trout waters in any way. Protecting all of our recreational species is good. Using Canyon Ferry as a put and take trout fishery is fine, it has been forever. The problem is that is not what most of the public really wants, thus real solutions that maximize the walleye potential are required.
Now with that said, could you be explicit in which rivers (I assume you are on a GW roll here) trout are receding upstream?
The Yellowstone has rainbows below Billings as always, browns all the way to ND. Cutts are thriving as far down as Big Timber (not counting the put and take cutts they tried around Columbus). I know GW is the topic du jour and all, but MT trout are all about having enough water in both their spawning/natal streams and in their "residential" habitat. We had a long drought not that long ago that had a profound effect on cutthroat reproduction (many spawning streams were cut off from the Yellowstone for the entire year). Low water in the rivers combined with high temps allowed species such as goldeyes and smallmouth to come upstream as they do each year, but even further up than normal. We caught SM as far up as Pine Creek in decades past. This was all 15 some years ago. Guess what, the same year we had a massive whitefish kill exactly as we had four years ago to which FW&P massively over reacted to, and would not even listen to their own retired biologists who tried to explain this was all deja vu as the same thing happened in the 80's and 70's. Then the water returns and the upper limit for goldeye is below Big Timber and we see very few SM. When the waters are low and warm trout find cooler water and warm water species fill the void. It goes back and forth with the seasons and year. That is a wild river working as it should, save the SM which FW&P put in the river decades ago.
The Big Horn is the reverse. When it flows high it is warmer and when low it is cooler. During recent high water years we have seen everything from paddlefish, sturgeon and pike to small mouth and even a large mouth or two up near the afterbay dam.
The Big Hole issues are all about water extraction. Same for the Musselshell, which BTW still has trout down well below Harlowtown.
It's not about warm water species vs trout. It is about managing all our fisheries in a sustainable way that fulfills the needs of Montana anglers.
-
i opened a can of worms. sorry if i got you fired up. should have said it different. i am ready to let this one go.
-
i opened a can of worms. sorry if i got you fired up. should have said it different.
Nonsense. If folks can't air their opinions and debate in a civil fashion, than we have a far bigger problem on our hands than a mismanaged reservoir. This is clearly a hot-button issue that needs to be addressed and frankly I've enjoyed this thread. It's admittedly sad, however, how we allow ourselves to be divided into factions of sportsmen.
-
Great info Wenger.
-
Wenger for FWP director!!! :bow: :clap:
-
i opened a can of worms. sorry if i got you fired up. should have said it different. i am ready to let this one go.
Naw, you opened a box of Royal Wulffs! ;D
It's all good, we just need to separate the issues. Guys on here who like walleye fishing are not anti trout. I'd bet we all grew up chasing them and still do. I get hot when when we start in with elitism, I spent years trying to get that through clients heads. I am a dry fly guy, but who cares if someone else is chucking a streamer or rapala? Same for species. Room for all in MT.
-
So Wenger, you prophesize that cisco are the answer to all of CanyonFerry's forage woes. Recall that F&G stocked ciscos into Tiber over twenty years ago. Was that the cure-all for the forage problem there? As an avid walleye angler that spends many days a year on the water there, I would say not. Quite a bit different outcome than Ft Peck. It's just not that easy.
-
You may argue that FWP management of CF is not yet where you want it to be but it has come a long ways from the pre-walleye boom, trout-centric approach of the late 90s and much of that has been in response to the public. To choose a defeatist attitude and not respond to a FWP request for comments is an option, just not mine.
Introduction of a forage species does not address the nearly complete absence of submerged or emergent vegetation (i.e. nursery grounds) in CF. Nor does removal of trout from the equation guarantee a departure from the boom/bust cycles of perch and walleye we’re witnessing.
-
So Wenger, you prophesize that cisco are the answer to all of CanyonFerry's forage woes. Recall that F&G stocked ciscos into Tiber over twenty years ago. Was that the cure-all for the forage problem there? As an avid walleye angler that spends many days a year on the water there, I would say not. Quite a bit different outcome than Ft Peck. It's just not that easy.
Never claimed to be a prophet. ::) I am expressing my opinion though.
The similarities between Peck's problems pre ciscos are remarkable. Both suffer from seasonal massive water elevation changes. Both suffer(ed) from underutilized nutrients which in Peck ciscos converted into millions of tons of fish. Both are deep and maintain the right temperature profile. ND and SD did the exact thing except they used smelt. The point is that they also had a niche that was unused, which was a gap in the food chain.
Worth a try IMO, Tiber or no Tiber. The potential for success certainly outweighs any potential for it not to work.
Why do you think managing for reduction in predators, which has clearly not worked should be continued? But if so, why not encourage them to start gillnetting the walleye out? Imagine that outcry. Something else needs to be tried in terms of maintaining both the perch and walleye populations.
Why do you think they never stuck in Tiber and why if we are not to compare Peck to CF, why should we compare Tiber to either CF or Peck?
I agree, nothing is ever simple. That never stopped me! ;D
-
Hey, Pike and Muskie aren't getting any air time here.
Plus I did do the survey, it was emailed to me since I am on their emailing list. Pretty neat.
-
You may argue that FWP management of CF is not yet where you want it to be but it has come a long ways from the pre-walleye boom, trout-centric approach of the late 90s and much of that has been in response to the public. To choose a defeatist attitude and not respond to a FWP request for comments is an option, just not mine.
Introduction of a forage species does not address the nearly complete absence of submerged or emergent vegetation (i.e. nursery grounds) in CF. Nor does removal of trout from the equation guarantee a departure from the boom/bust cycles of perch and walleye we’re witnessing.
I am not for removing trout by any means. They do very well feeding on the midges and other bugs which the walleye do not past a certain size, plus many anglers do target them in all of the reservoirs. I only have mentioned them in the context of the priorities of FW&P and the hypocrisy of natives vs non natives. If you read their studies and where the money is being spent above Townsend to try to maintain a viable population of browns, it is just not on.
Yes I agree 100% that at least they are acknowledging and trying to manage the walleyes now.
Introducing a forage species such as ciscos that do NOT depend on vegetation to spawn is my point. Introduction of say more fatheads or shiners would not work for the reasons you mentioned. The key is filling the ecological void that an open water dwelling, free spawning forage fish would do.
If you read some of the studies on CF, they claim that perch primarily are spawning in the channels within the delta where the MO braids up. I am not sure how well the Christmas tree program is working out. Can't hurt. But we do need to get away from the boom and bust cycles.
-
The cisco's have done well in Tiber from what I've seen, clouds of them on the flasher during ice season and lots of them in the bellies of pike and Walleye. There were some lean years after the introduction but the lake seems to have stabilized and has been kicking out some trophy pike the last few years in addition to the state record Walleye. I think one of the limiting factors there is a lack of good spawning habitat for the eyes, if they did some supplemental stocking to get the numbers up like they do on peck there is plenty of forage. The lake trout population also seems to be taking off now that they have some deep water food and I hear more stories of people catching them every year. It will be interesting to see what happens with the Zebra mussels if they take off and start filtering the lake.
-
The cisco's have done well in Tiber from what I've seen, clouds of them on the flasher during ice season and lots of them in the bellies of pike and Walleye. There were some lean years after the introduction but the lake seems to have stabilized and has been kicking out some trophy pike the last few years in addition to the state record Walleye. I think one of the limiting factors there is a lack of good spawning habitat for the eyes, if they did some supplemental stocking to get the numbers up like they do on peck there is plenty of forage. The lake trout population also seems to be taking off now that they have some deep water food and I hear more stories of people catching them every year. It will be interesting to see what happens with the Zebra mussels if they take off and start filtering the lake.
Great to hear. Hopefully we can keep ZM out of all our waters, I don't believe they found any in CF this year. They did catch a few boats coming into MT with them.
I had always heard ciscos were helping Tiber quite a bit so I was surprised about the previous response. I have never fished it myself so have no opinion on what has been going on up there.
-
Cisco in CF.....like that is EVER going to happen. ::)
-
It won't if we don't make the case for them in a unified manner. There is no biological reason not to, just politics and political battles can be won. Make CF Great Agian! ;D
-
I won't support Cisco's. I want Smelt. They are so much fun to catch through the ice. It would create a fantastic winter fishery and forage fish.
-
Montana in the fishing world is known more for fly fishing for trout then it is for a destination for warm water fish. If you hear about anything in a national publication for warm water fishing in mt its for peck usually. Yet if you look up the best trout fisheries in the country usually half the list is rivers in montana. Combine that with a lot of fwp being from other states that probably moved here for the trout fishing, if they fish at all, they are going to push for the revanue from out of staters here for the great trout fishing and the stream access. The younger guys in fwp for the most part are in it for money and power not the benefit of the wildlife and fisheries. How many times do they have public comments and still shove what they want to do down our throats? Montana trout unlimited has a lot of money and pulling power and will influence fwp greatly whenever it can.
-
And don’t forget about the guides and outfitters! Nothing personal Wenger, as I have friends that guide both hunters and fisherpeople, but it sure seems like a lot of them have a lot of pull when it comes to fishing and hunting!
-
If bug eating ciscoes were introduced to CF, then wouldn’t they compete with the stocked rainbows? I can see biologists wanting to avoid another mysis shrimp-like debacle which affected the kokanee fishery on Flathead Lake. While I would like to see a great walleye AND trout fishery at CF, the only way that seems to be possible is to boost the perch population. Good luck with that due to poor perch habitat.
-
Ciscos main forage is plankton but will eat other bugs like mayflies and midge larva. The rainbows in canyon ferry are mostly stocked and kept fast enough that competition probably isnt going to be a big factor on such a fertile system like the Missouri river system. Unlike the more sterile flathead lake. But making sure to avoid the same rhi g that happened in flathead would be a good idea
-
If bug eating ciscoes were introduced to CF, then wouldn’t they compete with the stocked rainbows? I can see biologists wanting to avoid another mysis shrimp-like debacle which affected the kokanee fishery on Flathead Lake. While I would like to see a great walleye AND trout fishery at CF, the only way that seems to be possible is to boost the perch population. Good luck with that due to poor perch habitat.
Yes,and anything that competes with trout for food will never be introduced into CF.Its a pipe dream.
-
And don’t forget about the guides and outfitters! Nothing personal Wenger, as I have friends that guide both hunters and fisherpeople, but it sure seems like a lot of them have a lot of pull when it comes to fishing and hunting!
I guided and outfitted for many years and for most of us between the public and the FWP the public usually won. Take the Bighole and Madison regs as an example. ::)
-
The younger guys in fwp for the most part are in it for money and power not the benefit of the wildlife and fisheries.
I get passionate about this stuff too... but do you really believe this statement? Perhaps I am reading it incorrectly?
-
I guided and outfitted for many years and for most of us between the public and the FWP the public usually won. Take the Bighole and Madison regs as an example. ::)
Out of all the people that fish the horn there is little trout harvest, except maybe with the natives. The fly fishing community on that river is almost strictly catch and release and the river is hurting from a lack of selective harvest.
-
Ciscos main forage is plankton but will eat other bugs like mayflies and midge larva. The rainbows in canyon ferry are mostly stocked and kept fast enough that competition probably isnt going to be a big factor on such a fertile system like the Missouri river system. Unlike the more sterile flathead lake. But making sure to avoid the same rhi g that happened in flathead would be a good idea
I agree. The ciscos would benefit the trout greatly too given they would start eating them when they reached a certain size, say 14 inches or so is my guess based on what I have seen in terms of rainbows in other lakes with abundant forage fish such as shiners (Yellowtail and the Afterbay on the Bighorn for instance) . The niche that is currently empty in CF is the conversion of excess nutrients, thus plankton thrives to the point that the water becomes green and not even fit to swim in. Ciscos will convert those nutrients into food for the trout as well as the walleye and perch, while taking the pressure off the perch as the sole forage species of the walleyes. The trout would I suspect, become much larger much quicker just as the rainbows in Peck now reach 15 pounds or more. Just as the Kootani bows that feed on the introduced kokanee which convert zooplankton into trout food.
I do not think the Flathead is a comparable example because it is totally different than the MO system. There native trout were decimated by the introductions, same as Yellowstone Lake. In the MO all the fish are introduced non natives, from top to bottom. That said Flathead and others over in Bull Trout country have FWP spooked to the point they don't even want to consider forage plants. Be it lack of courage, the avoidance of responsibility, keeping one's head low (all typical organizational behaviors in government and business) or just plain being part of the "new no new species" attitude. CF has upstream barriers in Toston Dam plus no suitable habitat for ciscos to colonize. Downstream there are two reservoirs that would be colonized and thus benefit, and then there are several hundred miles of uncolonized river habitat that flows into Peck with its massive numbers of ciscos.
-
Out of all the people that fish the horn there is little trout harvest, except maybe with the natives. The fly fishing community on that river is almost strictly catch and release and the river is hurting from a lack of selective harvest.
Yup. Mostly catch and release with most fly fishermen, but not by regulation. There is indeed quite a bit of catch and take on the Bighorn by the Crow folks. The Bighole and Madison there are very few trout kept in my experience, nor many on the Yellowstone either.
Now, on the Bighorn there is a about 90% keep rate with walleyes that are flushed through the afterbay I would bet based on knowing most of the guides there and having spent many an evening chucking rapalas below the Afterbay.
-
Would be nice to have a good size body of water other than peck to walleye fish especially if we get big dumps on snow and parts of peck are unreachable for most guys and I’m sure the surrounding business would benefit from a big ice crowd spending money in the winter on burgers and hotels seems like a win win to me and how many guys are fly fishing canyon ferry would make sense to put something in that would self sustain and quit wasting money and make some money for the area instead
-
Yup. Mostly catch and release with most fly fishermen, but not by regulation. There is indeed quite a bit of catch and take on the Bighorn by the Crow folks. The Bighole and Madison there are very few trout kept in my experience, nor many on the Yellowstone either.
Now, on the Bighorn there is a about 90% keep rate with walleyes that are flushed through the afterbay I would bet based on knowing most of the guides there and having spent many an evening chucking rapalas below the Afterbay.
The Catch and release only mentality of most of the fly fishing usually starts to hurt fisheries over time, the trout on the bighorn for example. People have no problem keeping the pike, walleyes and smallmouth bass on the horn cause they think it will help the trout population but keeping more of the apex predators in the horn will more thn likely help the horn by helping to reduce trout numbers and bring the quality back up. Pike would help the bighorn out and also canyon ferry, along with a good forage fish population. Fwp would have a gold mine if they would stop the war on the pike, manage canyon ferry for big pike, walleye and perch, the big rainbows are close by in the system and there is a nice town close by for lodging, food and bringing a family on a trip. Im convinced part of the reason peck is so good isnit is in the middle of nowhere and in comparison to other lakes close to more people dosent get hammered as hard as other fisheries. It also has the advantage of being a small inland sea. There has to be a correct balance of apex predators, forage fish and bug life to sustain a top quality fishery and canyon ferry is missing 2 of those
-
The younger guys in fwp for the most part are in it for money and power not the benefit of the wildlife and fisheries.
I can’t speak for the younger guys but I certainly pursued wildlife biology degrees in my quest for independent wealth and world domination. ::)
-
I can’t speak for the younger guys but I certainly pursued wildlife biology degrees in my quest for independent wealth and world domination. ::)
I helped at a shocking a few years ago and there were 2 kids there that were trying to get their degrees to become fisheries biologists and they barely knew the fish species we were sampling so.......
-
http://montanauntamed.com/fishing/article_cd2bb2df-270d-550a-a17e-da03c58e6d2a.html
-
LOL @ the guy doing the flip off nose scratch in the pic. ;D
-
https://www.thewesternnews.com/outdoors/20181218/fwp_will_leave_noxon_walleye_to_anglers
Did anyone else see this article? Do you think FWP decided to finally listen to local opinion or do you think something else prompt this?
-
Local opinion has never had an impact on their decisions.Making appear that it goes into the process is important to them though.
-
Canyon Ferry was initially created in 1896 (Lake Sewell). "Native" fish would apply to a river system which was subsequently changed with the introduction of the reservoir and the others downstream. Trying to use a spoon in a fork application is somewhat ridiculous.
-
Said to hear that Adam dismissed deep/open water forage out of hand saying they were all in on perch as walleye food. They could have at least explained what risks ciscos could possibly have in CF.
Not surprised as that is the company line under Mr Vermillion et al.
-
I want to comment on Wenger's original post where he states " Cicos are not a river fish, they are a plankton feeding species (which would also help clean up Canyon Ferry's algae problem by utilizing the excess nutrients which feed the algae)"
I didn't think this was correct so I Googled it and found this: ...large populations of zooplankton-eating (zooplanktivorous) fish will reduce zooplankton populations, which will result in less predation pressure on algae (phytoplankton). As a result, water clarity may decrease or more algal blooms may occur. The link is http://www.lcbp.org/water-environment/ecosystem-healt/phytoplankton/ and is a report from a Lake Champlain Basin program.
That said cisco may or may not be a good addition to Canyon Ferry as walleye prey.
-
Suggested reading:
Solving Tiber’s Predator-Prey Puzzle
http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/articles/backporch/2012/JA12Tiber.htm
An assessment of biological effects of potential introduction of cisco (Coregonus artedii) into Tiber Reservoir, Montana.
https://myfwp.mt.gov/getRepositoryFile?objectID=19204
-
I want to comment on Wenger's original post where he states " Cicos are not a river fish, they are a plankton feeding species (which would also help clean up Canyon Ferry's algae problem by utilizing the excess nutrients which feed the algae)"
I didn't think this was correct so I Googled it and found this: ...large populations of zooplankton-eating (zooplanktivorous) fish will reduce zooplankton populations, which will result in less predation pressure on algae (phytoplankton). As a result, water clarity may decrease or more algal blooms may occur. The link is http://www.lcbp.org/water-environment/ecosystem-healt/phytoplankton/ and is a report from a Lake Champlain Basin.
That said cisco may or may not be a good addition to Canyon Ferry as walleye prey.
The reason I made that claim is because while studying for my degree at Bemidji State back in the 70s in MN I was lucky enough to help net and transplant ciscos from their native lakes such as Kabekona to other more eutrophic lakes which also had suitable depth and spawning flats (further south and west ) in a very successful effort to help clean up excess nutrients from farm runoff and improve clarity mostly for cabin owners. The secondary benefit was that those nutrients became fish rather than algae.
Let's not forget that Cisco are not simply a zooplankton feeder but rather a generalized plankton feeder, this is a key point which was overlooked.
-
Will their be a public comment meeting ever on the upper Missouri managment plan?
-
THIS HORSE MUST HAVE CAME BACK TO LIFE, Must be part cat
-
Will their be a public comment meeting ever on the upper Missouri managment plan?
The latest round was held a couple of weeks ago.
-
I was in Helena when the first proposed UMRMP draft was voted down by the Commissioners. I also went to one of the public comment meetings a few weeks back. I think the meetings a few weeks ago was a directive by the Commissioners to "listen" to the fisherman of the state and see what they really want. Most of the discussion talked about their graphs, goals and netting results with some public commentary. I kind got the feeling they weren't looking for solutions but more on what the fisherman of the state wanted overall. They allowed us to leave comments on sticky notes for them to read later. They said at that time they had about 1000 returned surveys and wouldn't start reading them until after all three meetings were over. I believe they are revising a second Draft of the plan and will be available for public comment once it is presented to the public later.
No matter where you stand on any of these issues you all need to speak up and be part of the process in creating the new plan! I did hear in the meeting that if a Fishing Regulation needs changing someone needs to present a proposal to the FWP Commission. I along with many of you others do not want to take a way a fishing opportunity from someone else as long as they do not try and take away mine! All I am asking for is a "Balanced" Quality fishery in Canyon Ferry, Hauser, and Holter. I did support parts of the Original UMRMP as written but objected to other parts. Bottom line is when the FWP has a netting survey having an overwhelming number of the walleyes in their net 12" or less, thinking they're meeting the Management Goal/Publics Objective and then base a 10 year plan on those numbers I'd say try again.
-
I am impressed by the level of knowledge here about this topic. Born Late, thank you for providing the links on Tiber. Good information. The latest information, based on your links, was from 2012. I have a few questions for those how are willing to answer. I am not new fishing, and have ice fished Tiber for years now, but I am guilty of being the guy that sent the line down the hole, and never thought twice about the habitat/ecology/general make up of the lake. After reading the information on this forum about this exact topic, it has become enjoyable for me to learn about all of this.
1)Since 2012, is there any new (obtainable) information pertaining to what the FWP has done for Tiber?
2) Have they continued to attempt to provide spawning habitat for the perch? (trees, etc)
3) Have any more cisco been added?
4) Has the FWP continued to net fish, and if so, what is the current condition of the walleye population/yellow perch population?
5) Has the original stocking of cisco in the late 1990's thrived?
6) What is the general consensus on the current Tiber fishery? I have my own opinion, but would like to hear from someone with more expertise.
Thank you in advance!
-
Sadly the comment made by Adam was that that state was committed keep banging away at perch as both the forage for walleye and anglers and they will not consider alternativive forage species. We are back to ten years of backassward management of lowering walleye numbers rather than feeding them and taking the pressure off the perch. Canyon ferry will never get right unless they stop being so afraid of Cisco’s . It makes no sense to refuse to even consider a study of the possible negative impacts they might have in the upper MO.
-
I guess the discussion could go on and on for both sides. I know my opinion does not matter at all, which is why I will give it anyway.
There is no doubt that there are great comments here but it all needs to be put in perspective, at least for me. A give and take type of perspective. In my opinion this should be done for a period of 7 years.
1. I do not want anymore species eradicated/taken out of any waters in Montana.
1.a. I am willing not to introduce any new species to any waters in Montana if point 1. is agreed upon.
2. If a species cannot maintain itself under normal conditions in the current waters, so be it. This includes bull trout, cutthroat
2.a. Exempt salmon. Restock these as needed.
3. Leave all access to lakes, rivers and streams as is, do not impose further restrictions on nor alter: type of boating, closures, angler pressure, environment enhancement (trees, rip rap, etc.), and do not change regulations anymore.
I have a long list which I won't bore you all with. If we did this, to see what is really working instead of coming in with new ideas and changing rules every year, we would see after 7 years which waters support what species of fish. Find out what worked for what species and where. Then the group would have some substantial sure fire proof of direction to proceed into the future without altering the habitat environment and define and prevent adding a species that will struggle in certain environments.
I do not see the logic of adding a species to support another species that was added previously. Seriously. Where is the stopping point and what level of introduction of other species, enhancing habitat... where is this stop lose limit. All this cost money, which in turn raises the cost of my fishing license, registrations, possible additional taxes on angling equipment, etc.
Just leave it be the way it is and our already altered nature will decide.
-
Leave it the way it is OMG, the fishery is the worst I've ever fished, all this talk about the trout, what a joke they are every where get a clue and at least manage the lake for what 95% of the fisherman want. Walleye and Perch
-
Leave it the way it is OMG, the fishery is the worst I've ever fished, all this talk about the trout, what a joke they are every where get a clue and at least manage the lake for what 95% of the fisherman want. Walleye and Perch
Where did I endorse trout?
And at what cost to your comment? What if the lake is not able to sustain walleye and perch as the habitat that it is now? What if the species is too weak or to slow to evolve into the fish that can? Who cares about trout, I don't want trout everywhere because they cannot survive all habitats. That's a given in all species. To keep changing and adding species is totally ridiculous. I don't want to turn the clocks back to the Lewis and Clark days. It cannot be done. Still I don't want tax dollars and license dollars used to please just one crowd for something that isn't working right now. Eternal life support because one group wants it?
I state to just stop screwing with the "I wants". B.A.S.S. request bigger and more bass, Walleye Unlimited want more walleye and better habitat, Trout Unlimited want all native trout only. The perch fisherman want more perch. I just want to bait dunk and don't give a rats ash. I don't change my underwear as much as they change the regs. Where and when will it stop?
Now if some group of wants to take it upon their own financially responsibility to enhance a fishery and maintain it without a burden to the rest of the public and without restricting access, let that group spend their funds as they wish if it doesn't require modification of regs and environment. Let them carry the burden of the cost for eternal life support of that species.
If we continue down this "I want" path, where it requires more public funds, it becomes even more Government controlled, you know, like Socialist Marxism. The Government can say, look you asked for it and we did it so we say what it is and how and when you can use it.
-
Didn't say that YOU endorsed trout but looks,like to me , just,my opinion that people in charge dont want walleye and perch, kinda,funny 10 yrs ago you could,catch all kinds,of good fish all different classes of fish so what happened, total mismanagement, 20 fish,limits who has ever heard,of such a thing
-
Mismanagement is the keyword here. Let's just not manage it and let the altered nature take its course is what I am trying to convey. Stop spending and requesting conditions for species. Just let it evolve to what it will be. I think this is simple logic. The natural environment is going to change upon itself. Lakes, streams, rivers are not lawn to be continually mowed and manicured. Surely we don't want to damage these waters but let's stop altering the waters to accept a species that requires another species that requires additional introduction of plankton or some other life form for the chain to survive. If we don't it will be a perpetual financial burden to all fishermen.
-
1) Since 2012, is there any new (obtainable) information pertaining to what the FWP has done for Tiber?
2) Have they continued to attempt to provide spawning habitat for the perch? (trees, etc)
3) Have any more cisco been added?
4) Has the FWP continued to net fish, and if so, what is the current condition of the walleye population/yellow perch population?
5) Has the original stocking of cisco in the late 1990's thrived?
6) What is the general consensus on the current Tiber fishery? I have my own opinion, but would like to hear from someone with more expertise.
In response to 1-5, the info can be found here:
https://myfwp.mt.gov/fishMT/reports/surveyreport
Enter Tiber Reservoir in the waterbody search.
Click on Species Summary by Survey below the map.
Stocking info is available at the same location.
It appears that no ciscoes have been added since the original stocking of nearly 6.5 million in 1997.
-
Where did I endorse trout?
And at what cost to your comment? What if the lake is not able to sustain walleye and perch as the habitat that it is now? What if the species is too weak or to slow to evolve into the fish that can? Who cares about trout, I don't want trout everywhere because they cannot survive all habitats. That's a given in all species. To keep changing and adding species is totally ridiculous. I don't want to turn the clocks back to the Lewis and Clark days. It cannot be done. Still I don't want tax dollars and license dollars used to please just one crowd for something that isn't working right now. Eternal life support because one group wants it?
I state to just stop screwing with the "I wants". B.A.S.S. request bigger and more bass, Walleye Unlimited want more walleye and better habitat, Trout Unlimited want all native trout only. The perch fisherman want more perch. I just want to bait dunk and don't give a rats ash. I don't change my underwear as much as they change the regs. Where and when will it stop?
Now if some group of wants to take it upon their own financially responsibility to enhance a fishery and maintain it without a burden to the rest of the public and without restricting access, let that group spend their funds as they wish if it doesn't require modification of regs and environment. Let them carry the burden of the cost for eternal life support of that species.
If we continue down this "I want" path, where it requires more public funds, it becomes even more Government controlled, you know, like Socialist Marxism. The Government can say, look you asked for it and we did it so we say what it is and how and when you can use it.
That was quite the jump to Marxism having OUR government listen to us. Seems you have that backwards...
That said man made environments such as the MO river reservoirs from CF to SD are not natural and have had to be managed from day one. Without the gumption to introduce a balanced ecosystem from prey to predator we would have waters containing sauger to carp and thus only what was there pre dam. Biologists from the 60s and 70 s did a great job in providing creating the fisheries we had twenty years ago in MT. The current crop at Fwp from the top down have not. They are not responding to the tax paying sportsman. Instead they tell us what is what while ignoring why we have places like peck in the first place.
-
That was quite the jump to Marxism having OUR government listen to us. Seems you have that backwards...
That said man made environments such as the MO river reservoirs from CF to SD are not natural and have had to be managed from day one. Without the gumption to introduce a balanced ecosystem from prey to predator we would have waters containing sauger to carp and thus only what was there pre dam. Biologists from the 60s and 70 s did a great job in providing creating the fisheries we had twenty years ago in MT. The current crop at Fwp from the top down have not. They are not responding to the tax paying sportsman. Instead they tell us what is what while ignoring why we have places like peck in the first place.
Wenger, you say " introduce a balanced ecosystem from prey to predator ". So it has been attempted to introduced many times and yet the formula is not there. A balanced ecosystem has to be made by itself. You can try to establish a new type of ecosystem, which defeats the term ecosystem. Let it balance itself out. Let's just fish it.
You say "They are not responding to the tax paying sportsman". How can they? There are so many different groups of tax paying sportsmen that want it their way, they don't want my way or yours. So which group of tax paying sportsman do you want them to respond too first? Tax paying is all of the people in general, which also contribute unknowingly. The expenditures for recreation are not just sportsman generated. State Parks, State Funds. So to be fair, the general public has a say as well. Again, we are not ever going to get all groups and tax payers on the same line of thought.
This has evolved into planting tomato's in the Sahara dessert. It won't work unless you completely change the environment and find water. Then what is the cost of tomatoes per pound? Astronomical! We, I am guilty of this, it's about what I want, what suits me and my group. Same with you and the fly fisherman, the Bass guys, the Perch guys, on and on. We need to discover what the fisheries will naturally sustain, after being altered as they have been, let it evolve on it own and work progressively from there.
Trying to make it something it can't be and keep loading it with species of choice is never ending. As I said before, if your group comes up with some gold to throw at it and is OK by the rest of the public, by all means get the bullion out.
-
No, the whole mo system from peck down was balanced by introducing either smelt or Cisco as plankton based forage feeders to the top predators such as pike, salmon, Lakers and walleye with panfish and bass inbetween. The river sections were stocked and still are by over the dam and down the spillway with rainbows and browns. The only reason we have salmon which you approve of is because Cisco’s were stocked. This was a comprehensive approach that worked well. If you have actual evidence to the contrary please provide it rather that simply saying the approach did not work. Millions of anglers who spend millions of days on these waters will disagree with you.
Let’s be clear that this thread is about CF and down the line, not about Willy nilly bucket biology.
What we have from cf down to holter is boom and bust cycle caused by a missing forage link. Given reservoirs are in effect closed ecosystems nature cannot be expected to rectify the situation through evolution. Deep water plankton feeders are not going to evolve before we as a species disappears or the dams silt in or crumble.
We have the evidence that it works,
What we do not have is proper management of the resource. The failures are clear, boom and bust cycles are the evidence of mismanagement. FWP is simply going to keep trying to pound a square peg into a round hole until leadership and mentality in Helena is changed or they actually listen.
So your point is that those who want make that demand that our resources that are best suited for a proven ecosystem are being selfish when all the evidence is there? This is canyon ferry we are talking about and those that actually have fished it for decades have seen the disaster unfold and want it fixed. (As for your claim anyone wants to introduce plankton to CF i would suggest taking a gander at it any time from July on.)
This is concern for our resources not being selfish.
-
I do not have evidence to the contrary. Just that every year, it is a different lake, one is being netted to rid a species that thrives without effort, the next year they want to kill out a lake, the next year they want to exterminate walleye to bring back native species and keeps going. Reservoirs were, as I understand it, made for flood prevention and irrigation. These two factors, especially irrigation, won't allow for a stable ecosystem. We may have an exceptional snowmelt but yet have an extreme drought growing season that requires the lowering of the reservoirs to meet irrigation demands.
So the ecosystem, I agree, is 2nd in line after agriculture and may not be sustained as we want it. I want the farmers and ranchers to have the water needed for agriculture as intended, even if it lowers the levels that exceed normal outfall. The fisheries at these reservoirs are the by product of original intent. Agriculture, maybe community water and flood prevention.
So the radical fluctuations in water levels require radical fluctuations in the ecosystem that I feel doesn't have a sweet spot.
-
No sweet spot, but plenty of success stories within the system to be learned from. The major one we learned in the 60s to overcome these fluctuations was to introduce plankton feeding forage fish. It works.
-
Interesting discussion guys. I'm not MT but we have similar conversations in WI concerning regulated water levels in reservoirs/flowages.
Here, and I expect there too, level regulation has zero to do with fisheries management, lakefront owners or tourism. Army Corp/WI Power manages our levels for hydro dams and runoff control. Fisheries gets the trunk on the deal at best. They do what they can but it's complicated. One body has seen multiple drawdowns for dam repair. Did the repair, didn't get it right and had to take another swing. Another may drop up to 15 feet based on hydro needs and it's max depth is listed as 28'. Basically it turns into a riverbed surrounded by moonscape. The rest are in a constant state of fluctuation within ACE/WPS parameters. Trouble is sometimes Mother Nature throws a knuckle ball, we don't get snow and it takes until late July for lakes to refill to usable levels, if at all until there's a proper snow season.
Based on the last two replies, it sounds like these two have the problem identified. The problem with the problem is that it's a moving target...
Sorry to butt in. ::) And good luck.
-
I wish they would put a couple hundred thousand cisco in Noxon for the bass, walleye and pike. At least they finally listened to us about not killing the walleye in Noxon. That's a step in the right direction although I would bet it has more to do with budget shortages than actual will to do what fisherman want. I've never fished Canyon Ferry but I do hope for the sake of you guys that do fish it, that they get it squared away.
-
Interesting discussion guys. I'm not MT but we have similar conversations in WI concerning regulated water levels in reservoirs/flowages.
Here, and I expect there too, level regulation has zero to do with fisheries management, lakefront owners or tourism. Army Corp/WI Power manages our levels for hydro dams and runoff control. Fisheries gets the trunk on the deal at best. They do what they can but it's complicated. One body has seen multiple drawdowns for dam repair. Did the repair, didn't get it right and had to take another swing. Another may drop up to 15 feet based on hydro needs and it's max depth is listed as 28'. Basically it turns into a riverbed surrounded by moonscape. The rest are in a constant state of fluctuation within ACE/WPS parameters. Trouble is sometimes Mother Nature throws a knuckle ball, we don't get snow and it takes until late July for lakes to refill to usable levels, if at all until there's a proper snow season.
Based on the last two replies, it sounds like these two have the problem identified. The problem with the problem is that it's a moving target...
Sorry to butt in. ::) And good luck.
Thanks for the input.
Our issue with Canyon Ferry is that it is the first reservoir of three and is used for seasonal regulation so it is filled over the summer and dawn over the winter by 20 feet or more rather than daily for generation. Thus the perch have a very hard time spawning and our management only recognizes perch as the feed for walleyes. The reservoir used to crank out trophy perch in numbers and world class walleyes. Now we have very few perch and tons of tiny walleyes. Their idea of management is to simply keep increasing the walleye limit, which hardly anyone fills anyway. The reservoir is over 100 feet deep and a soup of algae each summer now, not even recommended for dogs to swim in. We have a very similar situation in Ft Peck, and by adding plankton feeder forage the issue was resolved and we have a world class laker, walleye and pike fishery.
It's really nutts to be honest, they simply refuse to consider any other strategy.
-
I wish they would put a couple hundred thousand cisco in Noxon for the bass, walleye and pike. At least they finally listened to us about not killing the walleye in Noxon. That's a step in the right direction although I would bet it has more to do with budget shortages than actual will to do what fisherman want. I've never fished Canyon Ferry but I do hope for the sake of you guys that do fish it, that they get it squared away.
of
The thing with Noxon is that it is not really cisco habitat and that the river runs right into Idaho. At least in the MO system the whole river is a series of very deep reservoirs with stretches of river between. We really don't need to worry much about downstream infiltration of exotic bait fish because all of the reservoirs downstream already have been stocked with them and by the time the MO reaches Omaha it is pretty much the old muddy MO with catfish and white bass.
Really happy they stopped the nonsense of trying to kill off the walleye on Noxon. I wrote a few letters to them about it when that was their plan. My guess is that there was no way to get them out anyway.
-
Wenger,
I have fished walleye in CF since the late 90's. It is so sad what has happened. I will say fishing pressure has changed greatly since then as well. You seem pretty well versed in this so here is a couple questions
1. would cisco clean up CF considerably? It is downright nasty come august anymore...
2. I do not know Tiber well, but I do fish peck quite a bit... is the walleye fishing on par with Fort peck? are people consistently catching multi year class walleyes? or is it a bunch on small until a few get big enough to eat the cisco?
unreasonable limits and fishing pressure just put the hammer down on any walleye over 15" quickly in the year in my observations. seems like a millions of 10-13" with a few monsters every year. Not very many 15-24" that everyone loves to keep.
-
Thanks for the input.
Our issue with Canyon Ferry is that it is the first reservoir of three and is used for seasonal regulation so it is filled over the summer and dawn over the winter by 20 feet or more rather than daily for generation. Thus the perch have a very hard time spawning and our management only recognizes perch as the feed for walleyes. The reservoir used to crank out trophy perch in numbers and world class walleyes. Now we have very few perch and tons of tiny walleyes. Their idea of management is to simply keep increasing the walleye limit, which hardly anyone fills anyway. The reservoir is over 100 feet deep and a soup of algae each summer now, not even recommended for dogs to swim in. We have a very similar situation in Ft Peck, and by adding plankton feeder forage the issue was resolved and we have a world class laker, walleye and pike fishery.
It's really nutts to be honest, they simply refuse to consider any other strategy.
Wenger, OK. You and I have our opinions, so let's find out why the FWP has taken the path on management as is. I will seek out on Monday the correct person to answer the inquires. I would appreciate that if there are questions and comments to submit, that the questions and comments we present to FWP contain no speculation, contain data, references or examples for or against a certain issue, FWP should have a chance to explain the States position on the management, additionally giving FWP the option on clarification on current and future plans for Canyon Ferry.
If you wish to elaborate on issues to be covered, pertaining only to Canyon Ferry, then please jot them down. Let's address this discussion with the powers that be, give them a chance to answer.
Additionally, I will contact all the Gov. players involved. This is not purely a FWP issue, they are also strained by the Corp of engineers, and who knows what other Government offices are involved.
-
Additionally, I will contact all the Gov. players involved. This is not purely a FWP issue, they are also strained by the Corp of engineers, and who knows what other Government offices are involved.
OK, I'll butt in (just a little bit). The above statement is likely the most important. As I noted, levels are regulated for reasons other than fisheries and that comes dead last.
When we lived in S.Dak in the early 60's, Oahe had just reached full pool and it was an incredible (no, really incredible) pike factory with average weights running in the teens. Now, it's leveled off. Still a great fishery but not nearly what it was in the 60's.
So there's two things in play for you guys: #1 - a maturing reservoir system and #2 - conflicting management priorities. I'd think if you continue to work through your Fish & Wildlife group you'll find the most support. I'd also bet they may be as frustrated as you, maybe even more... Make 'em your friends instead of making 'em the bad guys (because it's really the ACE or whomever) and you'll get farther. Find the management folks that share your goals and make 'em your friends. Goes a long way.
-
That would great. I have discussed this with them in the past but always the stone wall goes up, ie current policy which is not to introduce any forage. Nothing they try has worked, we all know they have considered walleye as invasive and a threat to the stocked trout to which they reacted to by increasing the size of the stockers. They also have prioritized trying to keep Browns in the river between Toston and the lake. They have stated repeatedly that perch are the only prey species they will consider. None of this is practable biologically or from a sportsman’s point of view. The bottom line is that there is a huge problem that they refuse to address. As a result we are wasting a great resource that is simply turning into a green cesspool each summer due to excess nutrients that could be turned into fish rather algae. I know what they will tell you, Cisco’s MIGHT become a problem below Holter. This is nonsense given we know how peck and Tiber responded. They are indeed stuck in the current thinking rather learning from or considering what we have learned from every reservoir downstream.
Please don’t take any of my comments the wrong way. I am not being contentious just trying to convince! ;D
-
Great conversation 👍
-
I am certainly willing to bring a solution to the table. I just do not want it to be a power struggle of people vs FWP. That will get us or them no where. We need to evaluate the FWP' bio-ecosystem reasoning and indeed attempt to understand not only our issues but understand the problems or bio science they have to offer.
To make it very transparent, I have no education in any bio sciences. I would be no more than a moderator or the bullet shield. We need to have solid reasoning, some actual science of this particular reservoir, not examples of other ecosystems that worked, but why the proposed ecosystem brought forth would work, time frame, and total forecast expenditures. I deal with kind of stuff in real life, although on a different compass of an industry.
The idea is to not suggest any experiments, but only the solution that works for the group and all other powers that be. Also, considerations need to be made to the actual budgets allowed for this fishery. The solution cannot be absorbent or over burden of the fisheries total budget. This existing budget needs to be defined and see if it fits the estimated expenditures. If it exceeds the expenditures, then, the obligation of budget shortfall lands on our lap. Need to be prepared to accommodate the shortfalls and explain sources of additional funds or suggested trade of other services in the current budget to be transferred to this issue if there are no conflicts with other groups and interests.
When a group attempts to address issues like this one, that group needs to have all the answers for questions that may never even be asked. Need to assure no other groups or interests will have to make concessions. That is how you win.
-
For more than 10 years that I know of and probably more there has been a concerted effort by multiple Sportsman groups that have tried to work with the FWP to help improve spawning habitat for the forage fish in CF. It has been in the FWP UMRMP Management plans as an action item but in reality I haven't seen anything but the Christmas tree project happen. It has been mentioned to use the Duck Ponds for rearing forage but that also has been met with Zero support from the FWP. When it was mentioned at one of the meetings recently to add Cisco's it was an immediate NO. Yes the reservoirs are at the mercy of the Power and Irrigation managers. Creating a sustainable habitat for forage spawning is quite challenging. I believe the Christmas trees do help but it's labor intensive and the trees seem to only last a year or two. It's the best thing we have got going right now. Introducing Cisco's or any other fish could fill the void but I'll bet the FWP response will be "When Hell Freezes Over"!
The seems the untold truth of this whole story is that the FWP is trying to Protect the Holy Grail of River Fishing below Holter Dam. They are worried that the Cisco's and or Walleyes will flush through the system and ruin the Blue Ribbon River fishing. Why else do they have a No Limit on Walleyes below Holter and the section of river isn't included in the UMRMP? When the Commissioners voted on changing the regulation to No Limit it was stated that there was No Scientific Reason but they chose to approve anyhow. Social pressure from a peer group I suspect?
I am willing to bet a dollar to a doughnut that if the FWP asked for help in funding projects to improve forage habitat there would be groups that would. Hell I remember a few years ago paying an extra 5 bucks (willingly) on my License to buy a Warm Water Stamp to help pay for a new Hatchery. I don't remember the Cold Water folks having to do such a thing? Luckily we worked together and got that fixed. I do not want this to be a us vs them thing! We need to work together but it seems that some folks don't want to play.............
-
gramps2321,
I will not pretend that there are no other groups that are more powerful funding wise which would translate as political donations to the right committees in Helena. Not suggesting any wrong doing, just stating facts of political $cience. There is no way to over come that other than have more political $cience available to distribute which I choose not to be part of.
As I stated, no concessions by other groups should be suggested, so this is one of the issues, " Cisco's and or Walleyes will flush through the system" needs to be address by our group, with solutions or it may never be considered. This won't turn into a conflict or argument with FWP or other groups if we address every type of question first before attempting to have a forum with FWP.
Another groups "wants" have been paid for and processed.
-
I agree that the issue of flushing should be addressed whole heartedly. But on the other hand the decisions need to be made on Scientific evidence and not peer pressure from either side. Like I said before, may of us have been working years on multiple issues and somehow we need to find a way to stick our hands across the fence and shake hands. I welcome your input and can appreciate that everyone has their own point of view.
-
As I pointed out before the dirty little secret of the blue ribbon water below holter is that a larger % rainbows in that stretch than anyone is willing to admit are stocked rather wild fish which we always called slipway stockers. It is also how rainbows and walleyes are stocked into the blue ribbon Bighorn. As guides we all knew this to be true. Let’s not overlook the influence of TU, Perkins lives on the Mo now. I guided the national board on super private waters and had to endure a few days of them spouting off about bait chunkers and spin monkeys to the point I refused to take them ever again. The contrails from their private jets heading east was the last I saw of them and the last penny I ever gave. So yes, THE biggest issue is indeed Cisco’s invading that water. The worst case scenario is that the fish right below the dam will get huge just as those below Garrison dam in nd do and also below the afterbay on the horn. It should be noted that these conditions only occur during heavy runoff and as soon as the bait quits coming over the trout revert to the next major food source being the big of the month.
I agree we don’t need a pi**** match but that assumes we get actual consideration rather than the same old out of hand rejection. There are legislative and electoral means to ends as well. Warm water and multi species fishermen I suspect are tired of 6 hour drives each way and are as such a sleeping giant politically if we care to be.
I have been a some big fights with the likes of NRDC as a farmer and against farmers concerning watershed non point source pollution issues and have won so far both as a consultant and lobbyist. There are ways beyond asking please.
-
A few thoughts...
I think it’s worth elaborating on your references to success in downstream reservoirs, presumably meaning Sakakawea and Oahe in addition to Peck. Granted, the introduced forage species in the former two is rainbow smelt rather than cisco but both reservoirs have endured roller-coaster forage and walleye populations for years requiring large volume supplemental stocking. While we may think of Oahe as a top notch self-sustaining walleye destination, SDF&G stocked 4.3 million walleye there as recently as 2017 to revive a slumping fishery. Sakakawea, also a recipient of annual stocking, has recently rebounded after a stretch of down years but is nowhere near the quality fishing experienced in the 80s. Over 825,000 walleyes were stocked in Fort Peck in 2018. My point is there is no guarantee that CF wouldn’t also require a substantial investment well beyondt an initial forage fish introduction at a time when hatchery budgets are being slashed. I would caution against believing forage introduction would necessarily result in a stable self-sustaining perch and walleye fishery in CF.
It is incorrect to suggest there are no native fish in CF. Ling/burbot are native and their numbers have steadily declined since the CF walleye explosion years of 1996 and 1997. That concerns some of us more than any trout vs. walleye debate.
The finned elephant in the room is the existing carp issue. A potentially very expensive and much more aggressive removal process would need to be undertaken if improving preferred species spawning habitat is a goal.
-
Right on about the carp.
Ling are indeed down in my experience too, though I have not seen any data on that. But the point of increasing the forage base is to take pressure off the perch, ling and other bait. I doubt any walleye stocking would even have to be considered given they spawn very well in CF. I would be thrilled with 50% fewer walleye as long as they were averaging 18 inches again.
The other issue that we have is that most of the walleye move to the south end enmass each spring post spawn to warmer water, but also because as FWP and MSU studies show that were the perch are spawning thus the only food source of note is concentrated. Does not take a genius to understand that an absolute slaughter is taking place. None of this is publicly discussed.
The logistics of planting Cisco would involve capturing a couple hundred thousand in peck, doing some quick disease testing, transport and dump in by the dam. FWP would have to provide a budget. No doubt there would be some impact study involved and a TU lawsuit filed in Federal court in Missoula with out favorite grizz judge... :-\
Perhaps a legislative directive to require and fund FWP to do such a study and budget would at least be a first step. I will contact my reps to get a reading about supporting this approach. If others do the same "cloakroom" momentum might get it rolling.
Native fish in CF I know of are ling, suckers, white fish and various minnows. That’s about it now. Might have missed one?
-
Whitefish in CF?
-
Yup. Not many any more.
-
Does not take a genius to understand that an absolute slaughter is taking place. None of this is publicly discussed.
“A small spawning population in 1996 and 1997 produced very strong year classes that resulted in a well-established Walleye fishery at Canyon Ferry Reservoir. Yellow Perch abundance and angler catch rates have plummeted to historically low levels.”
“The abundance of forage fish, such as White Suckers, has also declined to historically low levels.”
Page 80, https://myfwp.mt.gov/getRepositoryFile?objectID=84931
-
That paper makes some great points, and I have used it and other studies on CF to formulate my opinions. If we take a look at page 16-17 it states that pelagic forage increases both size/weight and growth rate of walleye. They falsely claim that walleye will not utilize open water habitat. Peck regulars have long known that they do infact feed on Cisco bait balls in open water just as pike, Lakers and salmon do. A great summer tactic when they seem to disappear in such waters as peck is to find bait balls of ciscos in open water on your electronics and deep jig below the bait or as we did last summer troll Alabama rigs around the bait balls. Top predators will develop the most efficient feeding strategy available, walleye included.
I am glad they have documented the ling decline as well. The statement made that trout stocking costs have risen 7 fold could be mitigated by providing alternate forage options that could divert pressure away from trout, ling and perch. Not a certainty but a strong possibility. The other issue not addressed is how much predation pressure on young of the year carp there is or is not.
They admit that 50% of CF anglers five years ago targeted walleye, up from 10%. My guess is that number is much higher now in summer from my observations on the water. One does not buy a 50k boat for perch or trout fishing, or am I wrong on that?
Then they scold about not respecting the public opinion that is obviously now redundant given the shift in target species. There are old records of walleye stocking above Toston as were posted in this thread, so it is very possible that it was not bucket biology that stocked CF. not that there can be any excuse for anyone to take such actions.
Over all this paper supports my hypothisis that introducing a forage fish such as ciscos would benefit all game fish in CF and greatly benefit the angling public. Thier stated guidelines on decisions to introduce new species would positively support adding ciscos but....We all understand that the concern is the twenty miles of river below Holter.
Given they have stated unequivocally they are only considering perch as the primary feed for walleye the question they must answer is what do they plan to do differently going forward? Same input always results in the same output. This is what it all boils down to for me. They need to make their case to the public rather than simply saying no without even considering the shift in sporting priorities. FWP is responsible to the public after all, if they have valid concerns lets do the studies and make the case one way or another.
-
Whats the chances they introduce ciscos ?
-
Whats the chances they introduce ciscos ?
Under current policy, nil. If they consider the pros and cons without bias it should happen given what they are and have done is not working. At least that is my view. :tipup:
-
“A small spawning population in 1996 and 1997 produced very strong year classes that resulted in a well-established Walleye fishery at Canyon Ferry Reservoir. Yellow Perch abundance and angler catch rates have plummeted to historically low levels.”
“The abundance of forage fish, such as White Suckers, has also declined to historically low levels.”
Page 80, https://myfwp.mt.gov/getRepositoryFile?objectID=84931
This paper is the works of perch, walleye and pike haters. Chapter 1 authored by Robert Bramblett and Alexander Zale. Both do studies only to support native fish.
Invasive Northern Pike are Associated with Range Contractions of Three
Native Cyprinids
Allison Stringer
Montana Cooperative Fishery Research Unit, Montana State University
Robert Bramblett, Alexander Zale
Pearl Dace Margariscus margarita, Northern Redbelly Dace Chrosomus eos, and Northern Redbelly
Dace C. eos X Finescale Dace C. neogaeus have undergone range contractions in Montana. Nonnative
Northern Pike Esox lucius have expanded from stocked reservoirs to prairie streams that are inhabited by
native cyprinids. Our objectives were to: (1) establish the current distributions of Pearl Dace and
Chrosomus spp., and (2) evaluate the extent to which their current distributions may have been
influenced by the expansion of Northern Pike. We captured Pearl Dace at only 8 of 85 sites in their
historic range and found that they may have been extirpated from 11 of 13 streams. Northern Pike were
captured in 9 of the 11 streams where Pearl Dace were not captured. Of 141 sites in the historic range of
Chrosomus spp., we captured Chrosomus spp. at 43 sites, and Northern Pike at 20 sites. Chrosomus
spp. and Northern Pike co-occurred at only one site. Expansion of Northern Pike may lead to the
extirpation of Pearl Dace from Montana and substantial declines in Chrosomus spp.
Evaluation of Suppression Methods Targeting Non-native Lake Trout
Embryos in Yellowstone Lake
Nathan Thomas
Montana State University
Christopher Guy, Todd Koel, Alexander Zale
Non-native Lake Trout Salvelinus namaycush threaten to extirpate native Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout
Oncorhynchus clarkii bouvieri in Yellowstone Lake, Yellowstone National Park. Suppression of Lake Trout
in Yellowstone Lake has been ongoing since 1995, primarily by extensive gillnetting. Bycatch of
Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout is associated with this removal method, which targets adult and subadult
Lake Trout. Alternative methods effective at causing mortality in early Lake Trout life stage(s) could be
used simultaneously with gillnetting to improve suppression effectiveness. Thus, the goal of this study
was to evaluate the efficacy of methods to induce mortality in Lake Trout embryos. In situ experiments
tested the effect of electroshocking, dredging, tarping, and covering spawning substrate with Lake Trout
carcasses on embryo mortality. Tarping had no effect, and dredging caused 27 percent (4.0 SE) mortality.
Electroshocking caused 99 percent (0.6 SE) mortality of embryos at the substrate surface but only 51
percent (20.8 SE) at 20 cm depth in the substrate. Lake Trout carcasses placed on the spawning
substrate caused 99 percent (0.01 SE) mortality of embryos both at the surface and at 20 cm in the
substrate. Lake Trout carcasses placed on Lake Trout spawning substrate may therefore be an effective
alternative suppression method if implemented on a large scale.
Then this class act US Fish and Wildlife Service Wade Fredenberg
Western Lake Trout Woes - Revisited
Wade Fredenberg
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
In Montana, Lake Trout Salvelinus namaycush are a self-sustaining introduced species established in
over 20 lakes, mostly west of the Continental Divide. Only a few lakes were intentionally stocked and
most of the rest were either illegally stocked or naturally invaded through interconnected waterways. Lake
Trout populations are a detriment to native fish in the majority of Montana waters where they occur,
including large lakes in Glacier National Park as well as Flathead, Swan, Whitefish, Lindbergh and
Yellowstone (Wyoming). In lakes with threatened native Bull Trout S. confluentus, Lake Trout
management runs headlong into the Endangered Species Act. In addition, ongoing Lake Trout expansion
ranks high amongst future threats to Bull Trout in the Clearwater lakes (Salmon, Seeley, Alva, Inez, etc.),
Lake Koocanusa, and others. Lake Trout are long-lived, hardy, resistant to starvation, reproduce liberally,
and prey upon and compete with other native and sport fishes. In systems where abundant invertebrate
food sources are added to the mix, a tipping point has often been exceeded for maintaining a diverse
native ecosystem. A 2009 review of seven western states revealed that agencies were increasingly
implementing strategies aimed toward reducing Lake Trout populations in an attempt to minimize their
growing impact. This presentation is a Montana update, but has broader ramifications, documenting
millions of dollars spent and mixed results in stemming the Lake Trout tide.
Transport-to-Adult Return Rates among Adfluvial Bull Trout Transported as
Juveniles Downstream of Hydroelectric Dams in the Lower Clark Fork River
Eric Oldenburg
Avista
Paul Kusnierz, Ernest Keeley, Wade Fredenberg
Avista owns and operates two dams on the Clark Fork River immediately upstream of Lake Pend Oreille:
Noxon Rapids and Cabinet Gorge. Historically, adfluvial Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus in the lower
Clark Fork River system utilized Montana tributaries for spawning and early rearing before returning to
Lake Pend Oreille. In 2000, Avista initiated a two-way transport program to reestablish connectivity for
adfluvial Bull Trout between Lake Pend Oreille and tributaries. Since this time, juvenile Bull Trout have
been trapped while outmigrating from Montana streams and transported around the dams to Lake Pend
Oreille. Night electrofishing downstream of Cabinet Gorge Dam has been used to capture returning adults
to transport to their natal streams. One goal of this research was to develop an understanding of variables
associated with the likelihood that juvenile transports would subsequently be recaptured as adults.
Multiple logistic regression was used to evaluate the relationships among numerous independent
variables and the binary response variable (i.e., recaptured as an adult or not). The overall transport-to-adult
return rate was 0.055 (i.e., 5.5%). The best-fit reduced model included fish length, month of
transport, and year of transport. Results from this study were used to modify length criteria for juvenile
transports and to eliminate trapping and transport during July and August when the likelihood of transport-to-adult
return approached zero.
Conservation of Bull Trout in the Lower Clark Fork River: Evaluating the
Effects of Passage, Nonnative Trout Suppression, and Habitat Restoration
Douglas Peterson
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Shana Bernall, Wade Fredenberg, Sean Moran, David Schmetterling
Populations of Bull Trout Salvelinus confluentus in the lower Clark Fork River, MT, are impaired from a
variety of reasons. Hydroelectric dam mitigation funds have been spent on projects to improve their
survival, but until now there has been no means to rank the relative efficacy of management alternatives.
Using a decade of data, we developed a probabilistic model to evaluate management alternatives for ten
local populations (i.e., patches) of Bull Trout. Under current environmental conditions and management,
the model predicted there were: three patches with a high likelihood (>85%) of a stable or increasing Bull
Trout population (λ of 0.9-1.1 or greater); four with moderate likelihood (>59 to 76%); and three where the
likelihood (48-54%) did not strongly indicate stability. An aggregate model for the eight Bull Trout patches
upstream of Cabinet Gorge Dam predicted only a moderate (59%) likelihood that the metapopulation was
stable or increasing. Management actions that reduced abundance of nonnative trout had the largest
effect on population growth in individual patches and the metapopulation, and upstream transport of
adults captured downstream of Cabinet Gorge Dam was also important. Habitat restoration had little
effect unless coupled with other interventions. The model and its outputs are best described as testable
hypotheses, but results suggest a greater intensity and more targeted interventions may be needed to
achieve management objectives.
Then backed by the money player Avista Corporation Paul Kusinerz, Eric Oldenburg as in the studies above.
They are all members of certain societies that are advocates for Bull and Cutthroat. Just how they play with the funding behind them, with a lot of bull and cutthroat practices.
I have not finished the paper but pretty bogus leaning so far with the players involved who are said to be "experts"
What is confusing is that Walleye Unlimited gives donations to these people and to their organizations, Walleye Unlimited sponsored the Westernslope Cutthroat Trout seminar for American Fisheries Society Western Division among other sponsorships they provide to deplete pike, perch, and walleye.
When the wolf in sheep's clothing is in your flock, how will you actually succeed?
-
It should also be of concern that the only type of tournaments and derbies are mainly to deplete a species. Lake Trout, Pike, Perch, Walleye, Bass, Rainbow. One allows Cutthroat in the tournament.
These tournaments please the powers that be. We assist in their management plan without even knowing, while they giggle.
-
You left out contrails and Bigfoot.
-
You left out contrails and Bigfoot.
I hit your sore spot there.
-
con·jec·ture
/kənˈjekCHər/
noun
1. an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
-
con·jec·ture
/kənˈjekCHər/
noun
1. an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information.
You forgot this also
con·jec·ture
/kənˈjekCHər/
noun
c : a proposition (as in mathematics) before it has been proved or disproved
-
Out of staters come here to fly fish = BIG$ for the F&G.(and their outfitter buddies)
+ Nobody comes here to fish for walleye = 0$ for the F&G (and nothing for their outfitter buddies)
______________________ ______________________ ______________________ _________
= the only science being used to manage our fisheries is MATH
-
As an ex outfitter I have to take issue with your claim, at least about FWP being "buddies" with outfitters. Please do not confuse or conflate the Board of Outfitters with FWP. And please understand how the system works before posting. Also "out of staters" are our fellow Americans, and you and I both have the right to fish in any other state we choose also.
Firstly guides and outfitters pay out of pocket (to the Labor Board not FWP) for licensing just as any barber or plumber does.
Then they each pay 100 bucks to use fishing access sites or boat ramps. They pay for the upkeep and their use, and that of the angling public.
Then we have the issue of restrictions on river use days, which is really about restricting the opportunities of fellow anglers be they from MT (which is a far bigger demographic than you know) or simply fellow Americans and fellow sportsmen who can't or do not care to row themselves down a river...or troll for a walleye in any of our lakes, and yes they do come from a long way to fish Peck and use to to fish CF. Just ask the several outfitters on Peck how good their business is and just how welcome that income is up in that part of the state.
You also do not seem to get that guides and outfitters are monitored on the waters, get checked far more often than the general public. On the Bighorn one FWP warden harassed us and our clients to the point that he was fired. This resulted in all sorts of bogus fines and lawyer fees for many outfitters. Any little ding like not having enough bandaids left in a first aid kit was referred to the Board of Outfitters for action.
As for the $$ fishing and hunting brings into our economy, why anyone would resent that is beyond me. Those dollars are multiplied many many times over and benefit the economy as a whole. This is Econ 101.
Outfitters and their clients care greatly about our resources just as any rancher does about the land. I can recount at least six years that my clients and I took about two hours out of our day picking up and netting beer cans and bottles out of the Yellowstone River off of gravel bars that had been used for camping following the annual "boat float". Not mention that guides and outfitters dedicate days on many a river each spring picking up literally tons of trash and junk from old car frames and tires to empty oil jugs.
Let's not split sportsmen apart over simple jealousy, misconstruing, conflating or not understanding the issue. Lets all work together the get CF working as a fishery together. I can assure you outfitters have the same sentiments as we do on that issue....besides, they love going below Holter or the Afterbay after work to pound on a few walleyes! :tipup:
-
My Uncle sat on the commission for years and still advises,I can tell you exactly how many of them have friends/relatives that make a living outfitting in MT.For years the president of the MT outfitters accoc. was a legislator that introduced and voted on bills having a direct effect on outfitting in MT.Get your head out of the sand,this is a financially run Fish and Game Dept,nothing more.
https://billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/recreation/outfitters-on-opposite-side-of-assistants-bill/article_bc09ff96-0946-5fb2-9cc8-8430b8d9ae56.htmlhttp:/billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/recreation/outfitters-on-opposite-side-of-assistants-bill/article_bc09ff96-0946-5fb2-9cc8-8430b8d9ae56.html
https://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/outfitter-legislator-pulls-bill-that-challenged-initiative/article_1b4c1beb-32d2-581e-80fc-b41add9e7441.html
https://helenair.com/news/state-and-regional/amendments-to-free-elk-license-bill-kill-measure/article_085c12e0-8776-5b91-aeae-e72711150d0f.html
http://www.montanaotg.com/blog-native/2017/1/12/bill-mash-up-could-increase-pay-for-block-management-landowners
If you dont think outfitters are shaping the hunting/fishing landscape in MT you are out of the loop.
-
It seems you have an issue with Flynn and elk hunting. leasing and for some reason the apprentice guide program...same as FOAM and most fishing outfitters do. Like many most all of the ranches I used to hunt are leased up now, it sucks but that's life in MT where property rights are sacred. If were lucky enough to own 20,000 acres of elk habitat I would also want the right to do as please with it. What Flyn has been said to be up to though with hazing elk etc is certainly wrong and illegal. If you read the articles you posted which I am aware of, they mostly support my position given FOAM and other sportsmen's groups opposed him on. Flynn is not on any Board, he is on a committee, we must not conflate the entities being the legislature, FWP, Labor Board and Board of Outfitters. Flynn IMO has done nothing for outfitters other than himself and perhaps a more reasonable candidate should run against him?
Why not address the points I made if you contest them? I hardly have my head in the sand having dealt with the Board Of Outfitters for twenty plus years as well as FWP and the Legislature. I also know a past member of the Commision and there was never any pro quid pro on any issue that I was aware of. If you could tell us which issues your uncle or whomever who was on the Commision did private or public favors for outfitters either as a group or as individuals, especially any that have impacted you personally or the public at large please be specific. I pointed out several actions which have been a detriment to outfitting such as the Bighole and Beaverhead and now the Madison regs that are about to greatly impact the town of Ennis if passed. Lets keep it factual rather than emotional please. :)
But all this has nothing to do with getting CF back to where it should and could be. Let's keep it focused please, I assume you are from around Townsend so your input on CF management would be appreciated. As I said, work together not divide.
-
New guy
-
I am having hard time trying to understand part of the newspaper article that appeared in the GF and other papers after the Public Comment meetings. Ms. Ryce was"Directed to make cuts to cause pain" so anglers would speak up and comment. Granted we need more public comments but is this the way to go about it? Am I missing something here? I'd like to know what the 1000+ survey results stated? Hopefully the crew will share that data!
I know that Eric, Adam and Ms. Ryce do an outstanding job gathering all the netting info and compiling the numbers and they DO Deserve a pat on the back for doing so! I just have a different opinion on the path we need to move forward with here. Show me some options for improving habitat. Show me some options for allowing some 10" fish to make it to 15" fish! Show me some options to reduce the number of juvenile Walleyes! How do we deal with budget cuts for stocking the Rainbows! Like I said I am not about taking away someone else opportunity just don't take away mine. I think its called Working Together!
-
I am having hard time trying to understand part of the newspaper article that appeared in the GF and other papers after the Public Comment meetings. Ms. Ryce was"Directed to make cuts to cause pain" so anglers would speak up and comment. Granted we need more public comments but is this the way to go about it? Am I missing something here? I'd like to know what the 1000+ survey results stated? Hopefully the crew will share that data!
I know that Eric, Adam and Ms. Ryce do an outstanding job gathering all the netting info and compiling the numbers and they DO Deserve a pat on the back for doing so! I just have a different opinion on the path we need to move forward with here. Show me some options for improving habitat. Show me some options for allowing some 10" fish to make it to 15" fish! Show me some options to reduce the number of juvenile Walleyes! How do we deal with budget cuts for stocking the Rainbows! Like I said I am not about taking away someone else opportunity just don't take away mine. I think its called Working Together!
I agree 100 % to an extent, we sure do have to to work together . Here are the options I have been putting forward with my justification. If you have others please state them, the complete picture and a wide variety of input is far better than the limited amount we have now. What FWP and every CF angler can agree with is that forage is the problem and reducing predator numbers does not work. :)
We have shown over the years that perch have a very hard time reproducing in CF due to the massive water level changes. They do best in drought cycles because that is when CF is not drawn down as far in anticipation of the need to retain big a snow pack and providing the ability to manage downstream reservoirs. The results of the Christmas tree project are not very encouraging as we know. Here is some data and info out of volumes online and at the MSU library http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=44300 ) Another study conducted by MSU post grad students showed that most all of the perch spawning occurs in the delta mouth and thus they get slaughtered by the spring concentration of walleyes in the south end. No way that the B of Rec is going to eliminate the fluctuations in water levels for fish or recreation. The habitat is what it is. Sadly the current plan, including Adam has arbitrarily rejected any other proposal to introduce forage. Perch as both forage and sportfish is the only option they say they will consider, yet no new ideas are presented. This stinks of both internal politics and external pressure.
We also know that CF is perfect for walleye reproduction and never will require stocking, and certainly reduction in numbers which has been unsuccessfully tried by netting spawning females and of course the high limits which are rarely achieved according to creel checks. Therefore removal of walleyes is undoable just as removal of carp would be as a solution. The wallyes need to be fed, period.
The basic problem is lack of feed for walleyes which force them to feed on trout and perch. This why FWP has spent 7 times more per trout to stock 8 inchers that will be able to evade smaller walleyes. Suckers are nearly gone, as are burbot and walleye do not it seems feed on young carp for some reason. Thus the solution is to utilize the deeper water habitat by introducing plankton feeders such as ciscos which are proven to be preferred walleye forage, taking away pressure on both perch and trout as prey, while also providing food for those desirable sport fish at the same time allowing walleye to grow past 12 inches.
There is a massive issue with ag nutrients coming into the river from potato and other intensive non point source pollution sources all the way up to Belgrade. These nutrients are not being utilized by plankton feeders in CF to a great extent, so they simply feed the algae which now plagues the lake each summer. This issue could be mitigated to at least some extent by utilizing plankton feeders such as ciscos to convert them into fish rather than slime.
My problem with FWP is their intransigence in even considering ciscos as a possible solution to all these problems. Instead the keep banging our heads against the wall, mostly because the powers that be are worried about the effect of ciscos going over Holter and presumably feeding the trout below which also are stocked over the dam, and perhaps being scared that walleye and perhaps pike populations below Holter might be bolstered by flushed out ciscos...but evidence in places such as below Garrison Dam in ND show that smelt that come over and through the dam creates an unbelievable fishery for huge trout, big walleye, salmon and even ten pound plus ling.
Some other path needs to be followed. FWP needs to listen to the public as a whole, not just the interests below Holter Dam including TU by adhuring like super glue to current trends in fishery management which is vehemently anti introduction of any species not native to the system. The hearings are a joke sadly as one side is presented, the FWP side and any challenge by the public is fought against. As such no real consideration of alternatives are presented fairly.
We have a potentially great resource in crisis, with a massive ecological void that if filled would help fix the problem and beyond IMO , and the obvious solutions are being not just ignored but rejected out of hand. GF needs to be managed in the same proven manner that reservoirs from Peck on down have been for decades with great success.
-
Wenger, I appreciate your thoughtful non-biased posts.
-
This is a total wild question and a bit off topic but is about CF and Missouri
Are paddlefish in upper part of the missouri river possible or maybe was before dams and such
Like if they were to plant Paddlefish in CF would survive and maybe run up stream like they do from Peck?
I was pondering this last year when Paddlefishing...
-
Wenger, I appreciate your thoughtful non-biased posts.
Can't claim to be unbiased, but I try hard to be reasonable. Thanks.
-
This is a total wild question and a bit off topic but is about CF and Missouri
Are paddlefish in upper part of the missouri river possible or maybe was before dams and such
Like if they were to plant Paddlefish in CF would survive and maybe run up stream like they do from Peck?
I was pondering this last year when Paddlefishing...
That is a very interesting thought. But as I understand it they were never common or existed above the Great Falls. But I may be dead wrong on that.
Years ago we were fly fishing below Garrison Dam north of Bismarck at night catching a pile of walleye, burbot and salmon and I hooked a paddlefish presumably when the fly swept into it's mouth. Quite the fight! I do know that several were seen running up the Bighorn to the afterbay dam a couple years ago with the high water.
-
What is fwp trying to do in the Madison range?
-
madison River. Limit the number of guided trips.
-
Wonder what the thinking there is seemed to me the guys with guys are way less of a problem than the free for all they let all the other people have at least they are usually on horses and farther in than most people go
-
Wonder what the thinking there is seemed to me the guys with guys are way less of a problem than the free for all they let all the other people have at least they are usually on horses and farther in than most people go
Fair question. I haven’t seen many people casting off horses around there either.
-
Let’s not conflate Cisco’s in canyon ferry with broke back mountain guy on guy on a horse or however they ride off into the sunset over Wall Rock...;D. That is not about FWP policy! ;D