USFWS study - Colorado Fishing Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 11-21-2010, 05:12 PM   #1 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,927
Send a message via AIM to TroutFishingBear
Default USFWS study

http://coloradoriverrecovery.org/doc...-CDOW-2010.pdf

check out pg 88...pike numbers in 2007 in the yampa river were higher than 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006...however they CONTINUE removals...interesting to see the # of large fish being so much higher as well...less small fish though (I read another study that attributed that to the higher water levels of 08-09 and not the removals)...and I read a quote that said the exact opposite somewhere from a bio so I will be retrieving it or trying to. It is also interesting to note on page 98 that the northern pike move, in majority, after being shocked, far downstream....Isn't the further they go downstream the further they are going into so called "critical habitat"? This should be concerning the bios.
__________________
I fish with a can, 12 lb test, a trebel hook and a ball of powerbait.

[quote author=ptaft link=topic=42422.msg488400#msg488400 date=1236743995]
I say if it catches fish throw it!
[/quote]
TroutFishingBear is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-22-2010, 03:55 AM   #2 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
DonInDurango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 11,877
Default Re: USFWS study

With respect to pike, the facts that I found the most interesting were:
(1) reproduction of pike is not occuring within the critical habitat area being studied;
(2) most of the pike were either spawned in river habitat upstream of this critical habitat study area, or escaped from lakes upstream of the area;
(3) without permanent elimination of the escapement, and elimination of the northern pike spawning areas and nursery habitat upstream of the sections where removals are being done, there is really no hope of succeeding in eliminating the pike population from the critical habitat for the pikeminnow and roundtail chub, because the netting is too inefficient.

So, why aren't we spending a greater share of the resources on task #3, rather than on the netting which admittedly cannot succeed by itself??

I haven't spent any time looking at the smallmouth sections yet.

Keep in mind, please, that I have never fished these areas and don't pretend to be an expert, so perhaps I'm wrong on some of this. Please also keep in mind that I am not against the removal of pike and smallmouth from this river habitat if it will aid preservation or recovery of the endangered species. It appears to me, though, that a critical step or two is missing.

I am against spending money in ways that only treat the symptoms, and not the causes of the decline of the endangered species. There needs to be habitat restoration, too, but that's a different topic. I suspect we lack the political will to do all that really needs to be done in this area.




__________________
"About the only thing more secretive than a mackinaw is a mackinaw fisherman...." - Rocky Mtn News 11-4-08
DonInDurango is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-22-2010, 04:14 AM   #3 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
DonInDurango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 11,877
Default Re: USFWS study

I keep hearing people refer to the "millions" of dollars that are being spent on removal of pike and smallmouth in the Yampa and Colorado.

Does anyone have a link to a DOW or USFWS document with the actual numbers??



__________________
"About the only thing more secretive than a mackinaw is a mackinaw fisherman...." - Rocky Mtn News 11-4-08
DonInDurango is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 11-22-2010, 04:55 AM   #4 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
redleader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 3,576
Default Re: USFWS study

it's one of those federal programs for bringing back endangered species, so thats a big tit there sucking on, I'm sure others can give you better specifics.
__________________
"Redleader standing by"
redleader is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-22-2010, 05:24 AM   #5 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
DonInDurango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 11,877
Default Re: USFWS study

Quote:
Originally Posted by captain shuyak
it's one of those federal programs for bringing back endangered species, so thats a big tit there sucking on, I'm sure others can give you better specifics.
I understand, Steve. I'm hoping someone can point me to the real cost numbers, not just somebody's talking point number.



__________________
"About the only thing more secretive than a mackinaw is a mackinaw fisherman...." - Rocky Mtn News 11-4-08
DonInDurango is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-22-2010, 06:46 AM   #6 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,927
Send a message via AIM to TroutFishingBear
Default Re: USFWS study


Its really hard to pinpoint the exact costs and funding of everything due to the vast number of organizations/bureaucracies that are in on this. However one example is the price-stubbs diversion dam. It cost 10.2 million dollars alone. (http://www.waterinfo.org/node/1884) New, current numbers are not available for total expenditures....yet anyway.


Budget for Upper Colorado River Recovery Program
Total expenditures for Fiscal Years 1989-2000 are $81,714,600:

* U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Capital), $34,908,900 (42.7%)
* U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Annual (Power Revenues), $22,975,700 (28.1%)
* U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, $13,734,800 (16.8%)
* Colorado, $5,747,200 (7%)
* Water Users, $1,868,800 (2.3%)
* Utah, $1,152,000 (1.4%)
* FY 88 Appropriation, $973,000 (1.2%)
* Wyoming, $354,200 (.4%)

Here's how it was spent:
# 36%: Instream flow identification and protection
# 24%: Habitat restoration
# 13%: Propagation and genetics management
# 13%: Program management
# 7%: Research and monitoring
# 6%: Nonnative fish management
# 1%: Information, education and public involvement
(http://www.fws.gov/coloradoriverrecovery/Crrpovvu.htm)
__________________
I fish with a can, 12 lb test, a trebel hook and a ball of powerbait.

[quote author=ptaft link=topic=42422.msg488400#msg488400 date=1236743995]
I say if it catches fish throw it!
[/quote]
TroutFishingBear is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-22-2010, 06:50 AM   #7 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
DonInDurango's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 11,877
Default Re: USFWS study

Thanks! That looks like what I was hoping you might have at your fingertips. It looks like it will take me a couple of days to sift through all this.



__________________
"About the only thing more secretive than a mackinaw is a mackinaw fisherman...." - Rocky Mtn News 11-4-08
DonInDurango is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-22-2010, 07:02 AM   #8 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 2,927
Send a message via AIM to TroutFishingBear
Default Re: USFWS study

Quote:
Originally Posted by gofindyourowndamnfish
Thanks! That looks like what I was hoping you might have at your fingertips. It looks like it will take me a couple of days to sift through all this.
Yeah there's a crap ton of stuff to it don. I'm sifting through a lot of it myself. A lot of their stuff is bogus which you will find out if you read it. I'm going to try to find a quote where Bob Muth lied two years ago about removal effectiveness. The only reason its a lie is because in one of their studies which came out two years after the interview (the study was concerning the year the interview was concerning) and the study completely contradicted what he said. Completely. But yeah.
__________________
I fish with a can, 12 lb test, a trebel hook and a ball of powerbait.

[quote author=ptaft link=topic=42422.msg488400#msg488400 date=1236743995]
I say if it catches fish throw it!
[/quote]
TroutFishingBear is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-22-2010, 07:42 AM   #9 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 11,176
Default Re: USFWS study

After reading this report on smallmouth removals, I do have a few problems with the science that's being used. Methods of take, water flows, and areas of emphasis within the study areas seem to change on a year to year basis. For example...concentrating on isolated pools one year and using those results as a comparison.

I also find it strange that the control areas, without removal, have a higher percentage of native species than the treatment areas...by a significant margin...This study seems to suggest, actually documents, that other non-native species, such as the white sucker, have increased in the treatment areas, while native species have declined.

Seriously, I look at the efforts and I see that nothing has been done to improve the fate of native species in the Yampa... Dams, water flows, the drought, more than sixty invasive species such as catfish, white suckers, crappie, small mouth bass, brown trout, pike, etc...all have impacted the survival of native species....

I truly don't think you can put the lid back on Pandora's box...And after reading this report, I can't believe biologists would feel differently. It's like walking on a treadmill...You can put in a lot of miles...but you really aren't getting anywhere.

If a man falls into the ocean and is surrounded by sharks...You pull the man out of the ocean...You don't try to pull out the sharks..

So.... much like the DOW's efforts to restore cutts....Why not try removing native species from the Yampa, and then, establish them in areas that don't have the predation, and all of the other concerns associated with the river? If we truly want to save native species...is the location where the species resides, more important than the species itself?

http://coloradoriverrecovery.org/doc...ts/nna/140.pdf
hobiecat is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 11-23-2010, 09:34 PM   #10 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 50
Default Re: USFWS study

I got here in 2007. First fished the Yampa in 2008, and between ice and I we caught I think 12 pike that day. Fished it again last year and we still got 11 or 13 pike. Fished it once this year and caught 13 pike. So pike numbers haven't declined since I got here, and bass certainley haven't. You still have to use big lures to keep the small ones off. They will never get rid of them. I don't see why they waste so much on it. I don't support killing sportfish for what most of us see as rough fish anyway. Besides if you check their studies the amount of natives haven't increased in the Yampa.
__________________
Fire the bios and CSU
fieryone is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Colorado Fishing Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
USFWS Document On Endangered Fish Progress, Or Lack Theoreof jake attwood Colorado Fishing Lounge 3 10-24-2012 08:38 PM

» Forum Search
» Insurance
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL3
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.