Random Thoughts In South Park - Colorado Fishing Forum

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 08-05-2015, 08:54 AM   #1 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
dieseldoctor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,235
Default Random Thoughts In South Park

http://www.borntofishmedia.com/rando...in-south-park/
dieseldoctor is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 08-05-2015, 09:12 AM   #2 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 1,121
Default

Great read. Sure does make you wonder about the potential of fish size that are in these bodies of water
mattyt is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-05-2015, 10:11 AM   #3 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 71
Default

Wow. You read my mind. Other than a couple small ponds on the West Slope, there are no warm water lakes with much/any protection that I know of. I have started to really get into the WW fishing that last three years or so and although it is really fun, the big fish are very uncommon. I know CPW has declared war on smallmouth and pike but why not designate a lake here and there as C&R or at least better slot limits. I could go on and on as to why I think that is the case. I have these discussions all the time. When I want to catch big trout, I generally go to Utah, Wyoming, or Montana. If I wanted to catch big WW, I guess I;'d go somewhere down South. The sad truth seems to be that the managers of our fisheries here in Colorado seem to be most interested in having the most opportunities for visitors to catch stocked trout and the vast majority of fisheries are managed as such. Warm water seems to be an afterthought if it is even thought of at all. There is absolutely no reason why Colorado couldn't have trophy opportunities for almost every type of game fish with just some minor modifications to management of a few fisheries. I'm not saying every lake and I know many people like to keep some fish but could we just have a few places where we could have some opportunities to catch some truly big, non-trout fish, regularly? I'd love to hear from a rep of CPW on this subject.
carroth is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 08-05-2015, 10:49 AM   #4 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
dieseldoctor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,235
Default

Carroth one of the issues is we don't that many people that attend round table meetings to speak up. The last one I attended in Denver had more CPW employees there than we had anglers. We need to be a bigger part of the process of deciding which bodies of water get protected. If we can communicate with the CPW in a positive way I think we can have more say in having a few lakes protected so we can see our states true potential, but we need people to actually show up and voice their opinion.

One of the problems is the CPW doesn't make these meetings at times when most anglers can attend. When you hold meetings on a Tuesday night that immediately removes any possibility for a lot of anglers to attend. Why not hold these important meetings on a weekend when there's a better chance for a good turn out?

When anglers don't turn out for these round table meetings the CPW doesn't need to take our input into their decision making.... We don't need to only share our opinions but also factual evidence. The biologist in Denver wasn't aware there as many bass being harvested from Quincy and honestly how could he know. The Q has a great bass population and he's going to see good numbers wherever they put nets. Anglers however see 4 and 5 pound fish leaving far too often, even worse being plucked off beds then leaving on stringers. After telling Mr. Winkle about what my fishing buddies see he said he wasn't aware of it and sounded interested in possibly turning the Q into a C n R for bass. That's with a handful of guys talking with him and sharing our information. Can you imagine the impact we could have if we had two or three hundred people packing a room all supporting more protection for warm water species in a select number of lakes?

I'm also not saying I know that we can make a difference attending meetings, but at least that's taking action and working on change.... not just talking about it.
dieseldoctor is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-05-2015, 01:02 PM   #5 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 253
Default

I believe that there have been some warmwater locations designated as C & R in the past. Ward Ponds? The problem, as always, is that regulations without enforcement are ineffective, at best. Most warmwater locations are closer to population centers and more easily accessible to the greatest number of people.....and, proportionately, to the greatest number of those for whom restrictive bag limitations are an invitation to plunder. For those who are inclined to ignore restrictions against retention and/or feign ignorance of the regulations (due to alleged language difficulties or for whatever other reason), the designation of a body of water as C & R is nothing more than hotspotting an ideal location for them. The CPW needs to prioritize its mission towards enforcement rather than the harmfully bizarre manipulation of successful diversity in locations such as Blue Mesa, Williams Fork, Granby, etc. Designating locations as catch and release may provide a false, feel good component but actually will create an opposite result in the quality of a fishery unless combined with enforcement. For some reason, the CPW seems to increasingly feel that the enforcement aspect is beneath them.
rattman is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-05-2015, 01:14 PM   #6 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
dieseldoctor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,235
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rattman View Post
I believe that there have been some warmwater locations designated as C & R in the past. Ward Ponds? The problem, as always, is that regulations without enforcement are ineffective, at best. Most warmwater locations are closer to population centers and more easily accessible to the greatest number of people.....and, proportionately, to the greatest number of those for whom restrictive bag limitations are an invitation to plunder. For those who are inclined to ignore restrictions against retention and/or feign ignorance of the regulations (due to alleged language difficulties or for whatever other reason), the designation of a body of water as C & R is nothing more than hotspotting an ideal location for them. The CPW needs to prioritize its mission towards enforcement rather than the harmfully bizarre manipulation of successful diversity in locations such as Blue Mesa, Williams Fork, Granby, etc. Designating locations as catch and release may provide a false, feel good component but actually will create an opposite result in the quality of a fishery unless combined with enforcement. For some reason, the CPW seems to increasingly feel that the enforcement aspect is beneath them.
Great points!!!

There's already a number of C n R bass ponds but if we added tangible criteria to in order for lakes to be designated Gold Medal water. What would that criteria be I'm not sure... I agree that regardless of what we get changed via rules and regs there will be a portion of the angling population that will continue to do what they want. Another thing I'd add(if I was running the Gold Medal bass program lol) we'd never add little neighborhood ponds or smaller bodies of water period to the Gold Medal list.

Completely agree without enforcement designating these areas Gold Medal would be counter productive in some instances. I'm not sure how we get better enforcement of the existing rules much less added rules unless it's at location like Quincy with rangers on staff.
dieseldoctor is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-05-2015, 03:00 PM   #7 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,951
Default

Good stuff as is the norm for you Diesel.

Rattman made some very valid points about the enforcement side. The Dream Stream is patrolled pretty regularly so while there may be some "poaching" it isn't likely to happen too often.
Ninja is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-05-2015, 04:05 PM   #8 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 71
Default

I totally agree with all of these points. I live near New Castle and when there have been CPW meetings close enough for the drive, I have made them and you are right, very poorly attended which is especially dismaying given the number of guides in my area. I have a major gripe with CPW because I feel like they mainly care about big game and enforcement at the fishery level is minimal most of the time or non-existent during big game season. As much as I don't want to encounter law enforcement, I would gladly like to see more of them at random times (not just major holidays) patrolling our waters for poachers.
carroth is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-05-2015, 08:04 PM   #9 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 24,442
Default

Great read Eric!

Actually this state needs to do what some of the more progressive northern states have done...slot limits...take care of some of the pygmy bass in pueblo and chatfield...there would be some growing pains getting there but it would be so much better in the long run...
__________________
Senate grants trump access to Senate floor by allowing babies under 1 year old the right to visit! Wonder if McConnell will clean his dirty nappy?
Zman is offline   Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 08-06-2015, 09:46 AM   #10 (permalink)
Senior Member
 
dieseldoctor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,235
Default

Mark it's funny you bring that up. At the round table meeting in Denver this year I was talking to Winkle about Quincy and trying to convince him to switch to C n R there. A few minutes later Nathan Zelinsky sat next to me and started lobbying for a slot at Chatfield. Everyone at the table started bringing up all the positive things that would come from a slot being put in place for smallies at Chatfield. Chatfield, P-town, and Horsetooth could all use a slot limit.

I think it would be interesting to go all C n R at Quincy for a few years and see what it could produce. Would we see just how big fish could grow in the Q when left in the water to do so, or would it lead to a higher number of fish eventually leading to a stunted population? No way of knowing without giving it a go. If the bass started to stunt at the Q it would be another body of water that would benefit from a slot. The bigger fish and their genes would stay in the lake and the clones would be taken out.
dieseldoctor 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
Random Thoughts from FISHAH0LIC... Let's hear how you got hooked on fishing! fishaholic Colorado Fishing Lounge 36 02-06-2011 09:22 PM

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

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:33 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.