Bucket biology "crackdown?"

[Born Late]

“They’re trying to get someone to rat out on their buddy.”

Hmmmm...  I guess I don't consider ratting out skunks to be an ethical dilemma.

http://helenair.com/news/local/fwp-proposes-cracking-down-on-bucket-biologists/article_bdded5ce-9de6-11e3-bdf9-0019bb2963f4.html

[halijigmt]

They have NEVER caught anyone?Really?

[Born Late]

They have NEVER caught anyone?Really?

That's a quote from the Walleyes Unlimited guy, not FWP but it's a good question to pose at the hearings.

[halijigmt]

Id be surprised if they havnt nailed a few guys over the years for stocking their ponds that feed into streams/rivers ect.

[Mt.Bucket]

The highly voracious walleyes made serious dents into the perch, trout and sucker populations. FWP then changed management plans to incorporate walleyes in the system. They lowered limits and put in slot limits to grow more sizeable walleyes for anglers.

“We’ve really seen the number of perch change dramatically. In all three reservoirs we’ve seen perch numbers down,” Roberts said.


How come Holter has so many perch this year then? Walleye should have cleaned them out! It's because it sees a lot less pressure, and fisherman were not taking beyond there limit day in and day out of spawning females, like they did on Hauser and Canyon Ferry. If they actually checked licenses and creels/buckets anglers may not be as inclined to do so. In all my life fishing, and I'm 40 I have only been checked ice fishing ONE time. I fish a $#!t load.

FWP MT is lame, lazy, and should go get some schooling in NORTH Dakota where these species coexist.
They should also get off there asses and check more people, stock some perch, and pay attention to anglers other the ones whom belong to Trout unlimited. What was that warm water stamp we were paying for/can still donate to for?

No offense to the trout guys I love trout fishing in the summer in the creeks and alpine lakes.

Walleyes Unlimited has offered a cash reward for information on illegal introductions for almost a decade. The reward has not had much effect.

Cool donate the money to the warm water fisheries of Montana!

[SnowedOutMT]

On the new 2014 regulations there is also a full page on the back with numbers to call to report "bucket biologists." I've always wondered how many fish a person would have to plant to get a whole lake populated. They plant hundreds of thousands of trout into the lakes that they do plant. I understand walleye are very aggressive compared to trout, but I think conditions would have to be pretty ideal to let some fish go and have them thrive. I also wonder how much is fish themselves just working past manmade objects. Jurassic Park said it best "Life finds a way."

But I honestly don't know enough about introductions so maybe it definitely has been happening even if they've never caught anyone.

[halijigmt]

MT would be a boring place to fish without decades of bucket biologists.

[MatCat]

So they are trying to tell us that there were absolutely no walleyes or pike in the missouri river system before they built dams on the river?  Don't they think it could be possible that a few fish could have already been in the system and then when the dams were built they created an ideal environment for them to reproduce?

[lundin-loading]

The alleged "illegal introduction" of walleye in canyon ferry is laughable..

[ClearCreek]

As a recent grad of fish and wildlife science these posts make me sick.

weigand - your degree in fish and wildlife science will do you no good here.  Since we have all been fishing at one time or another, we all know everything there is to know about fish management. 

ClearCreek

[9tine]

As a recent grad of fish and wildlife science these posts make me sick. Believe it or not, a couple buckets of fish can do huge damage. 

Or, on the other side of the coin, a couple of buckets of fish can make a lot of great fishing.  When will Mt. F&G realize that they will never return the state fishery to the way it was when Lewis and Clark came through.  When will Mt. F&G take an honest look at all the other state's fisheries that manage a diverse combination of species in the same lake.  When will Mt. F&G take into consideration what the sportsmen population of the state really prefer.  This may come as a shock to you Weigand, but a huge number of sportsmen and women west of the divide are sick and tired of the trout/salmon ONLY mentallity of F&G.  You're young and idealistic.  I'm not.  Don't just ask the sportsmen what they prefer, ask the local people in towns like Trout Creek and Seeley Lake what they think.  Here's a news flash.  Not many fishermen go to the lakes and reservoirs around those towns to catch the trout and salmon.  They go there to catch the perch, bass, pike and walleye (if they would manage for them), and they enjoy it and are glad the opportunity exists.  There are tons of areas to fish for trout and salmon in this state.  I enjoy those as well.  But, ruining the few warm water fisheries west of the divide in the name of management is just plain bullcrap.  The real crime in all of this mismanagement by F&G is that in many instances they are dumping tons of money into a completely impossible long term management plan.  For instance, they will never remove the walleye from Noxon. Period!!!  They can reduce the numbers, but as soon as they quit putting the money into the netting the walleye will return.  Why don't they manage them and be done with it?  How come I hear so much about how the walleye will decimate the bull trout in Noxon, but the biologist told me (as soon as he was sure I wasn't from Trout Unlimited) that they manage that reservoir for trophy pike.  I'm 57 years old and I love the diverse opportunities that the warm water species have brought to the western part of the state.  If you want the bucket biology to stop, then properly manage the situations that are present now and give some consideration to what the residents of this part of the state want from their fisheries.

[Born Late]

But, ruining the few warm water fisheries west of the divide in the name of management is just plain bull****.

If they were warm water fisheries, trout and salmon wouldn't be present and, presumably, there would be less argument. But they're not.  I assume **** means "trout." 

Some good points though.  Noxon is in the news today.  Based on the article, FWP received a lot of comments on the proposed plan.  Are yours included?
http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/are_walleye_welcome_in_noxon_resevoir/34938

[missoulafish]

Weird, article is 6 months old.

[Born Late]

Weird, article is 6 months old.

Ha, I totally missed that! I've heard people complain about their Internet connection speed in Kalispell but THAT'S ridiculous.

[9tine]

In my above post, the only part that is actually a quote from Weigand is the first sentence.  The rest is my opinion.

[9tine]

If they were warm water fisheries, trout and salmon wouldn't be present and, presumably, there would be less argument. But they're not.  I assume **** means "trout." 

Some good points though.  Noxon is in the news today.  Based on the article, FWP received a lot of comments on the proposed plan.  Are yours included?
http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/are_walleye_welcome_in_noxon_resevoir/34938

Throughout the northern tier of states warm/cold water fisheries coexist in tons of lakes.  The different species find their niche and a diverse fishery can be enjoyed by the sportsmen.  It doesn't end up all one way or the other.  However, Mt. F&G has always been reluctant to consult other states biologists for suggestions on how to handle a new situation.  The whirling disease issue was a prime example.  Instead of contacting the biologists in Michigan and California, (both of which had a 20 year jump on Mt. with whirling disease, and both of which had great fisheries programs) they decided to waste our time and money on doing their own study.  Unfortunately, this approach is also being applied to the warm/cold fisheries issue west of the divide.

[Born Late]

Throughout the northern tier of states warm/cold water fisheries coexist in tons of lakes.  The different species find their niche and a diverse fishery can be enjoyed by the sportsmen.  It doesn't end up all one way or the other.

A lot depends upon your definition of "co-exist."  I don't know much about Noxon, but a natural, weedy waterbody like Devil's Lake in North Dakota (as well as loads of other lakes in MN and WI) has relatively stable "co-existing" walleye and perch populations.  Co-existence in nearby Lake Sakakawea, more similar to our sterile (from a vegetation standpoint) Canyon Ferry, consists of wild swings in the predator-prey balance with booms and busts over the years. Anglers (and hunters) want to count on their quarry being there in ample numbers every year; I get it.  And they want the convenience of diversity in their back yard; I get that. What I don't get is the apparent expectation that FWP could pull miracles out of their butts and sustain balanced co-existence (meaning stable year-to-year numbers and size) in a rez like Canyon Ferry merely by talking to biologists in other states (which they do, by the way).  I'm not convinced folks would be happy with the results at CF even if FWP were to completely abandon trout management there.

[MT_btagger]

Part of the reason FWP spends so much money on trying to reduce or eliminate illegally introduced species is as a deterrence against future introductions. Otherwise we'd have people continue to introduce fish willy-nilly across the state by the bucketful. Depending on POV, the fisheries could improve, decline, or potentially stay the same. But long-term management of them would be pointless and impossible. And like it or not, FWP is in the business of trying to manage Public Trust Resources for everyone over the long term.

It drives me nuts that FWP has to spend money on removal projects that could be spent in other ways, like access and facilities. But it's not FWPs fault, it's the fault of the bucket biologist. They are stealing from all of us, by forcing FWP to spend money that could be better spent elsewhere. If the majority of the public was really jumping up and down for switching a coldwater fishery to a warmwater fishery, and it was an isolated system, I think they would do it. But I don't think the support is there like some people claim.

The other issue is trying to reduce the chance of moving various fish diseases around the state. It the trout folks started driving livewells of Viral Hemorrhagic Septicemia positive walleye back from the midwest and dumping them into lakes, I'm sure we see more people calling for an end to bucket biology.

[SnowedOutMT]

I was just wondering about the probability of fish surviving long enough to reproduce and having those fish find each other and reproduce, I wasn't trying to make anyone feel sick... Nor am I saying that dumping buckets of fish into other waters is ok. Would I want pike or walleye gobbling up the trout in Georgetown? Of course not. I wouldnt mind seeing the salmon get bigger again, but I'd rather be eating them instead of aggressive fish. I think a larger issue would be something like zebra mussels, water milfoil, or asian carp taking off.

[coldcreekchris]

fish are the utmost adaptable of creatures....an ecosystem in its purist form is something to be honored and respected....I am not saying we can go back..and I certainly enjoy catching perch bass pike and walleye..but there is a bigger issue here....we can all be selfish and think of our wants....look...nothin g is going to change the fact that these introduced fish species are here....they are fun to catch and feed our families....but please all you dissendent naysayer folks who think that anyone with a different opinion than you is some Missoula loving Obama loving liberal...well...you couldn't be further from the truth....anybody doing any type of bucket biology is totally misguided....there are so few pure ecosystems left...the reality is....we are where we are at....but to change an ecosystem.. just to satisfy your own wants...is selfish...yes you may find confirmation with others....but if there is a chance we can keep what little pure fisheries we have left....then just maybe...we should...

[9tine]

If the majority of the public was really jumping up and down for switching a coldwater fishery to a warmwater fishery, and it was an isolated system, I think they would do it. But I don't think the support is there like some people claim.

Have you even bothered to read this article?  http://www.flatheadbeacon.com/articles/article/are_walleye_welcome_in_noxon_resevoir/34938

83% AGAINST removing the walleye from Noxon.  How is that NOT overwhelming support for leaving the walleye alone?  I am not in favor of "bucket biology", but I am totally against wasting F&G money on an issue that cannot be resolved with present options.  Any species that is introduced into a large river/reservoir system (Missouri/Clarkfork) and is capable of sustained reproduction, is there to stay.  Manage them!!!!

[9tine]

fish are the utmost adaptable of creatures....an ecosystem in its purist form is something to be honored and respected....I am not saying we can go back..and I certainly enjoy catching perch bass pike and walleye..but there is a bigger issue here....we can all be selfish and think of our wants....look...nothin g is going to change the fact that these introduced fish species are here....they are fun to catch and feed our families....but please all you dissendent naysayer folks who think that anyone with a different opinion than you is some Missoula loving Obama loving liberal...well...you couldn't be further from the truth....anybody doing any type of bucket biology is totally misguided....there are so few pure ecosystems left...the reality is....we are where we are at....but to change an ecosystem.. just to satisfy your own wants...is selfish...yes you may find confirmation with others....but if there is a chance we can keep what little pure fisheries we have left....then just maybe...we should...

I totally agree with your overall sentiment here, but this isn't the Arctic or northern Canada.  How many water systems in Montana do NOT have introduced game fish species (rainbow trout, brown trout, brook trout, lake trout, kokanee, perch, pike, walleye, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass)?  Face it, almost all of the fishing in this state IS for introduced species.  If you had your way and all this could be taken away to meet your definition of "Pure" then the fishing would stink.  Here's a list of native species. http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/management/nativeFish.html
I find it interesting that lake trout and pike are both native to Montana; not in all the drainages that they are in now, but they are still a native fish.

[Cornbread]

I totally agree with your overall sentiment here, but this isn't the Arctic or northern Canada.  How many water systems in Montana do NOT have introduced game fish species (rainbow trout, brown trout, brook trout, lake trout, kokanee, perch, pike, walleye, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass)?  Face it, almost all of the fishing in this state IS for introduced species.  If you had your way and all this could be taken away to meet your definition of "Pure" then the fishing would stink.  Here's a list of native species. http://fwp.mt.gov/fishAndWildlife/management/nativeFish.html
I find it interesting that lake trout and pike are both native to Montana; not in all the drainages that they are in now, but they are still a native fish.

Yep, notice how almost none of them are trout. The cold water fisheries people complain they want to preserve are by and large not native unless they are talking bull trout.

[halijigmt]

Lets go back to the way it was before white men...whitefish and suckers!

[Born Late]

Well, you left out cutthroats, bull trout, grayling, sauger, ling, paddlefish, catfish, sturgeon, etc. but yes, Montana is now a hodge-podge of introduced species and I too fish for some of them. Some of my favorite backcountry lakes would be barren if not for stocking of non-native trout back in the early 1900s. There are plenty of examples of really dumb decisions involving biologists lacking the information to anticipate the long-term effects.  And some were the result of selfish SOBs in both the private and public sectors. I do believe we have an obligation, not to mention a legal mandate, to try to protect native species to the extent possible but the extent possible does not mean everywhere.

What bothers me as much as the bucket biologists themselves is attempts to rationalize an illegal introduction as civil disobedience or some vigilante rebellion against the evil biologists that wouldn't listen to us.  B.S.  It’s a crime and I expect a law with teeth. If you want to see a change in lake management, participate in the process and legislate the change.  While in some cases there may be no return once the horse is out of the proverbial barn, automatically settling for managing the aftermath of a crime and accepting illegal introduction is the equivalent of saying, “No biggie, bro, go to your room without dinner.”  Additionally, thinking truckloads or bucketloads of multiple species dumped into a lake will join fins, sing “Kum Ba Yah” and achieve eternal harmonious balance is simply naïve. 

[NateZ]

Lets go back to the way it was before white men...whitefish and suckers!

While there is some merit to this since most of our popular species have been introduced, it still makes me wonder about the end game when it comes to management. The canyon ferry walleye issue is a good example. All the arguments against walleye talk about declining perch populations or needing to stock larger trout at a higher cost to taxpayers.  Funny thing is, I never hear anyone talk about the affects for the native ling population. Granted, ling are my favorite fish in this state bar none. In fact they are never addressed when conversations come up about preserving native fish populations. Why is that?  If you start searching you will find very little research having been done on them. By all rights they should be distributed throughout the Missouri River drainage but I've never heard of a ling being taken out of Ennis lake or Hebgen lake. Why isn't the FWP all hot and heavy to return ling into these lakes that were their natural habitats. Then again, I've never chucked a hunk of sucker meat into Hebgen so who knows, maybe there are some hogs in there.

[halijigmt]

Some of the most devastating "bucket biologists" are the MT F&G.

[NateZ]

I just think there is more going on than trying to preserve native species or else the ling would not be ignored in the conversation.

[sra61]

One thing that I have always wondered about is the Canyon Ferry walleye deal. If I'm not mistaken, there has never been a human charged with what everyone seems to assume was an, "illegal introduction". Walleye are present in the entire system below there, but everyone just assumes it was some rednecked warm water fisher caveman that put walleye in there! Has anyone ever heard of Occam's Razor? It seems to me that the easiest and most likely explanation is that Nature found a way. But what do I know, I actually like Lake Trout!!!

[NateZ]

I think the thing is that the walleye were intentionally stocked below CF dam. If that was right or wrong is for someone way smarter than me to decide. What I do know is that standing below CF dam, it is hard to imagine a fish making its way upstream beyond that barrier on its own. I don't mind the walleye being in CF. I just get sick of hearing about their impact on perch and rainbow populations and not hearing anything about ling which are an awesome native species. Look into the research that has been done on ling populations in this state and you won't find much. Then look into research into bull trout or cut throat populations and tell me that there isn't an agenda that has nothing to do with actually preserving native fish populations.