Please welcome Eyoyo Underwater Fishing Cameras.https://amzn.to/3siEgXn
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.
Will their be a public comment meeting ever on the upper Missouri managment plan?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.