Thinking 'Outside the Box' regarding fisheries management in Nebraska

[gohawks]

I did not say anywhere in my post that you were not humble.  Again, you've taken something that I wrote and went in an different direction.  I understand that you like to shoot straight in order to nip false information in the bud.  Toadsmack made a great comparison.  I actually gave you compliments in my post.  Just like Polini, he has great information that he can give but at the same time can leave you with a terrible outlook on the program because of the way he answers the question.  This forum is used by the entusiastic and avid fishermen.  This can be your greatest asset to help maintain quality fisheries.  Whether the ice is crap or not...your responses as a state game and parks official leaves an impression. 

[spook_bob]

Please stop the madness!!!!! All you guys are killing me

[whitetips]

Daryl,

In the interest of a sane and rational debate, can you please link to research that suggests your claim:
Yes, I said adding 85 acres of brushpiles to 850 acres of water ain't going to make a measurable difference in terms of fish production.  There will be no measurable difference in the numbers of small fish from adding fish attractors on that scale.
  As in any science, we are trying to falsify things.  Where are the studies that have falsified the hypothesis that a small portion of cover will provide a "measurable" difference in production? What does measurable even mean in this context?  If these studies don't exist, how can you make these kinds of claims?  Everything I have read says that, if anything, artificial cover seems to increase production, but adding it might be controversial based on ratio of cost per lb of structure added versus lbs of fish added.  If people are willing to donate their own artificial cover, then even if it only helps a little, what is the problem?

You guys are missing my point.  My 85 acres of brushpiles in an 850 acre sandhill lake illustration was that 85 acres of brush piles is a darned lot of brush piles, more work than will ever be accomplished at one time, and that would only provide cover on 10% of the surface area.  Fisheries biologists sampling fish from a body of water where 85 acres of brushpiles were added to 850 acres of water would not see any difference in the numbers of small fish collected after the addition of that little cover.

If you want to do the research on that, you can review articles on habitat improvements and evaluations in the North American Journal of Fisheries Management, http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujfm20#.UulloPldV8E.  The Journal of Lake and Reservoir Management would be another good one to research, http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ulrm20#.UulmIfldV8E.

Now, call me a fraud if you want, I can cite "chapter and verse" from more than one paper on research that evaluated exactly what brush piles and other artificial cover provides.  I do not have the time today to do the library research to come up with that, and I don't have it sitting right here on my desk right now.  They are in there.  If all we had to do was throw some brush piles in a lake to make the water quality, fish production and fishing better, why do we do a heck of a lot more than that in our Aquatic Habitat Program, http://www.outdoornebraska.ne.gov/fishing/programs/aqhabitat/aqhabitat.asp?  We have learned a lot about aquatic habitat enhancement over the years.

"As in any science we are trying to falsify things?"  I thought we were trying to learn things?  Sometimes we learn things that did not fit our original thinking.  I said before I have nothing against brush piles and other forms of artificial cover.  As long as you have the OK to do so (so that you are creating a hazard of some kind), go ahead, knock yourself out.  Brush piles can make fishing better by concentrating fish making them easier to find and catch.  In small bodies of water, if needed, brush piles and other artificial cover might even improve "habitat" conditions, if you add enough.  But on an 850-acre body of water, you cannot add enough brush piles or other artificial cover to increase fish production to the point where you could even tell the difference.

Daryl B.

[whitetips]

I did not say anywhere in my post that you were not humble.  Again, you've taken something that I wrote and went in an different direction.  I understand that you like to shoot straight in order to nip false information in the bud.  Toadsmack made a great comparison.  I actually gave you compliments in my post.  Just like Polini, he has great information that he can give but at the same time can leave you with a terrible outlook on the program because of the way he answers the question.  This forum is used by the entusiastic and avid fishermen.  This can be your greatest asset to help maintain quality fisheries.  Whether the ice is crap or not...your responses as a state game and parks official leaves an impression.

Remember you are not the only one I am replying to.

This forum is used by enthusiastic and avid fishermen.  I'm one of them.  I will continue to do what I can to inform and educate, recruit and retain, and change some attitudes along the way.  I stand by my responses and impressions.

Now, just a heads up.  You all can continue this discussion, but I am going to be out of the office the next several days.  I will be back, but you ain't getting any responses out of me for awhile.

Gone fishing,

Daryl B.

[eyewinder]

Daryl:

Enjoy Nebraska's late ice. . .while I don't necessarily agree with everything that you put forth, you are a great contributor to Nebraska fishing and fishing message boards.

eyewinder

[nebftbl]

" In small bodies of water, if needed, brush piles and other artificial cover might even improve "habitat" conditions, if you add enough.  But on an 850-acre body of water, you cannot add enough brush piles or other artificial cover to increase fish production to the point where you could even tell the difference."

If I can catch fish on them....THEN I CAN TELL A DIFFERENCE!  Makes for a few more anglers going home happy which leads to what?  Angler Retention.

Sometimes the little things make a bigger difference than we think.  If all us fishermen were interested in was the creel surveys then we could do that from home without buying a park pass or fishing permit.

You have to enjoy the trip, the whole package.  But the new recruits need a little more just to get hooked before they can take a full weekend of hard fishing with slim results when conditions are tough.

You guys are all full of good information.  Just like Daryl, I am learning a lot too.

Now, what are the GPS coordinates of those brush piles?

[whitetips]

" In small bodies of water, if needed, brush piles and other artificial cover might even improve "habitat" conditions, if you add enough.  But on an 850-acre body of water, you cannot add enough brush piles or other artificial cover to increase fish production to the point where you could even tell the difference."

If I can catch fish on them....THEN I CAN TELL A DIFFERENCE!  Makes for a few more anglers going home happy which leads to what?  Angler Retention.

Sometimes the little things make a bigger difference than we think.  If all us fishermen were interested in was the creel surveys then we could do that from home without buying a park pass or fishing permit.

You have to enjoy the trip, the whole package.  But the new recruits need a little more just to get hooked before they can take a full weekend of hard fishing with slim results w hen conditions are tough.

You guys are all full of good information.  Just like Daryl, I am learning a lot too.

Now, what are the GPS coordinates of those brush piles?

A brushpile might have made it easier to find and catch those 105 fish in that body of water.  Might have resulted in 105 fish rather than 101 too, but if they are easier to find, catch, and harvest, was anything gained?

One more time, I ain't against brush piles and other artificial cover objects, they are fish attractors and they can make it easier to find and catch fish.  They do not necessarily result in more fish.

Daryl B.

[FishGut]

If I can catch fish on them....THEN I CAN TELL A DIFFERENCE!  Makes for a few more anglers going home happy which leads to what?  Angler Retention.

You're presuming everyone has your same ideals. If you are looking to catch fish easily, we could always have the state start draining the lakes altogether. That will concentrate all 101 to 105 fish in a bathtub, and you can reach in with a dip net and bring 'em home.

I read a long time ago the five levels of real anglers, from beginner to Master: First, you want to catch a fish, any fish. Little kids are the best example of this. Second level - you want to catch a lot of fish. You're not happy until you have a bucket full, and another two or three getting freezer burn back home. Third level - you want to catch a BIG fish. Those schools of 2 to 3 pound bass around here SUCK because Lake Falcon puts out bass in the double digit range. Fourth level - you're back to being happy just to catch a fish. Now you're testing your skills in the most adverse conditions. If you can catch fish when no one else can, you're walking with a smile on your face for days. The final stage is when you're just happy to be fishing. You might not even make a cast because you are paying attention to everything else - the damage the last storm caused, the birds that have shown up, what crops are being planted in the watershed and how that's going to change stuff around.

The NGPC's job is not to make sure you catch fish. Their obligation is to provide the best environment for the fish and wildlife, let them prosper, and then we all can enjoy the results.

[nebftbl]

Liking the idea of brush piles (or whatever) merely for angler recruitment which leads to retention.  So Yes, Daryl, something was gained. 

I haven't seen the 5 levels of anglers before but i like it and agree.  Thought I was close to the final stage but will never get tired of catching 2-3 lb bass either as long as I am doing it in good company and hopefully introducing another generation to the sport.

Besides, who wants to clean 105 fish?  If catching was that much easier could bag limits be decreased to maintain populations?

[Mr Merritt]

Ok, just for a moment, setting aside a lively debate on the potential benefits or lack there of regarding brush piles, what if I put out the word of a "shovel ready" brushing project at a major Nebraska fishery?  If the project required a good sized volunteer work force and some equipment would enough folks step up to make that happen?

  Within the last couple weeks Game and Parks Wildlife Division has cut and made numerous piles of mature cedar trees to control their numbers on wild life lands adjacent to Merritt.  These piles of fresh cut cedars are mostly near  near Highway #97 between Lone Tree camp area and the Beeds Landing area.  Many, if not the majority of these trees are pretty large.  They would make great long lasting fish habitat but also require some hefty equipment to unpile and move them around, drag them into suitable locations on ice, attach cinder blocks with heavy duty zip ties or wire to anchor them on the bottom once the ice goes out.

 Just a few years ago I helped with a similar project here at Merritt.  Once each April for four years the Game & Parks provided a tractor loader, a machine that ripped cedars, roots and all, from the ground, a large jon boat, a barge and equipment operators.  Volunteers provided ATV's to drag the trees to staging areas where cinder blocks were attached before loading them onto boats for placement in Boardman creek. This was done one weekend every spring for four years.  We estimate that about 1,700 to 1,800 mature cedars were placed throughout the back of Boardman Creek .   Fishing, especially for bass and bluegills, got noticeably better and remains good today as those cedars are still providing great habitat.  It would also seem that the dense brushy cover spread over a significant portion of the creek arm would help provide nursery cover for young of the year fish, especially during water drawdowns due to irrigation when shallow (>8 ft.) near shore vegetation was above the water mark.  Whether that actually is the case may or may not be so.   At worst we put in a bunch of darn good fish attractors, which isn't such a bad thing.  At best we placed enough cover to improve habitat for all ages of fish so that the Boardman arm at Merritt can support more fish.  My personal feeling is we were able to make a positive difference.
  I think it would be beneficial if similar projects were done in other sections of the lake or if that isn't now feasible, to add more cover to the Boardman Creek area.  We made this work before.  Game and Parks were great to work with and the equipment and operators they provided along with volunteers hands and ATV's got the job done pretty darn efficiently. 
So the question is....who and how many would actually show up to help with a brushing project?  I think if we could find around 20-25 volunteers, with 8-10 ATV's we could put a large number of already cut fresh cedars to use as fish habitat.  What say you forum members?

[Wrench1]

I would appreciate  a good look at Chalkrock lake, Daryl, something has happened to the panfish and has resulted in a fishery that only consists of bass and catfish. I,m not sure what happened but somehow this imbalance has taken place. Just figured you might enjoy the input. Thanks for all you do for us.

[nebftbl]

Mr. Merritt,  This sounds like a great idea and would be more than worth the effort.  I am a 5 hrs away but will keep checking progress of such a plan.  If something like this could be done along I-80 closer to GI and Kearney I would be happy to help.

[Mr Merritt]

Mr. Merritt,  This sounds like a great idea and would be more than worth the effort.  I am a 5 hrs away but will keep checking progress of such a plan.  If something like this could be done along I-80 closer to GI and Kearney I would be happy to help.

Thanks for your reply.  While most would agree projects like this are worth while, finding enough volunteers to  accomplish it always a challenge.  Merritt is not around the corner from anywhere close but if there are any folks out there that would be interested in participation (no dates proposed yet) speak up on this forum and we can try to proceed from there.

[Wallygators]

One thing that would help get better opportunities for game and fish if we vote for gambling in  the state. Big reason why south Dakota has a lot better state parks and better fishing for sure.

[ClearCreek]

One thing that would help get better opportunities for game and fish if we vote for gambling in  the state. Big reason why south Dakota has a lot better state parks and better fishing for sure.

Could you explain how having gambling in a state improves the fishing?

ClearCreek

[Wallygators]

Gambling gives 12 percent of revenue to game and fish

[nate95366]

Gambling gives 12 percent of revenue to game and fish

If it's simply a revenue problem, this voter would rather see the funds come from people (like me) who are using the resource, not from gambling/gamblers.  Does the current bill being introduced/discussed in the Neb. State Legislature send 12% to the game and fish side of NGPC, or is that the way things are written up in heaven South Dakota?

[ClearCreek]

Gambling gives 12 percent of revenue to game and fish

So Nebraska Game and Parks gets no money from the lottery? 

South Dakota GFP gets 12% of the total gambling revenue generated in their state?

Interesting.


ClearCreek

[ClearCreek]

Gambling gives 12 percent of revenue to game and fish

Wallygators:

Could you provide a source for the information you stated.  The reason I ask is the South Dakota Game Fish and Parks revenue sources does not list gambling revenue as a source of funds.  They list a miscellaneous category that provides 3.2% of their budget or a little over 1.6 million dollars.  Gaming in South Dakota produces a gross revenue of $107.36 million dollars (12% of that would be $12.88 million).  Gaming tax revenue produces $16.62 million dollars (12% of that would be $1.99 million dollars).  I am just trying to figure out why the numbers don't add up very well.  New math??

ClearCreek

[Derag2]

They do get money from lottery.  When they put asphalt at pierce in the camping pads and stuff a couple years ago it was money from lottery tickets......  12% of all gambling is SD im sure is a big chunk of change.

[ClearCreek]

They do get money from lottery.  When they put asphalt at pierce in the camping pads and stuff a couple years ago it was money from lottery tickets......  12% of all gambling is SD im sure is a big chunk of change.

derag:

That is what I was thinking also.  I just don't think SD GFP receives that amount of money from gambling/gaming.

ClearCreek

[whitetips]

So Nebraska Game and Parks gets no money from the lottery? 

South Dakota GFP gets 12% of the total gambling revenue generated in their state?

Interesting.


ClearCreek

The Nebraska Game & Parks Commission can get some money from the Environmental Trust Fund (i.e. "lottery money"), but it is not designated for Game & Parks Commission.  That money comes in the form of grants and the Game & Parks Commission has to apply for those grants just like everyone else that gets that Environmental Trust money.  That funding has been used for a number of Aquatic Habitat Rehabilitation projects, http://www.outdoornebraska.ne.gov/fishing/programs/aqhabitat/aqhabitat.asp

Daryl B.