Colorado Fisherman Forum banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,307 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Anyone know what the new minimum size for walleye is at Horsetooth? Are they doing away with the over 21" rule?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,386 Posts
Horsetooth Reservoir—Larimer County
a. Fishing is prohibited in the inlet area as posted from March 15-May 31.
b. The minimum size for smallmouth bass is 12 inches long.
c. The minimum size for walleye and saugeye is 18 inches long. Only one walleye or saugeye in
the aggregate more than 21 inches long may be taken per day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,266 Posts
Commission changes walleye size/bag limits
Posted: 11/17/2010 01:00:00 AM MST

Among changes to fishing regulations approved Friday by the Colorado Wildlife Commission were modification of walleye limits on selected waters, adoption of flies-and-lures and maximum-size restriction on a portion of the Arkansas River below Pueblo Dam, loosening lake-trout limits on Blue Mesa Reservoir and tightening provisions for the collection of minnows and crayfish.

The changes will go into effect Jan. 1 and remain in place for the next five years.

Walleye limits at Chatfield and Cherry Creek reservoirs were changed to three fish at least 18 inches long, of which only one can exceed 21 inches. The measure also applies to the South Platte River from Chatfield Dam downstream to C-470.

At Carter Reservoir, the new limit will be three fish no longer than 21 inches in length. The intent is to bring the walleye population into balance with the reservoir's forage base while maintaining a trophy-fish component.

Special walleye regulations were removed from Horsetooth and Boulder reservoirs. At Nee Noshe, Nee Gronda, John Martin and Adobe Creek reservoirs, the possession limit was raised to 10, and the one-fish-over- 21-inches provision was removed. The 15-inch minimum was removed from Trinidad Reservoir, while only one walleye or saugeye per day can exceed 18 inches.

Expanded turkey hunting.

A change in turkey-hunting regulations approved by the Colorado Wildlife Commission on Friday provides over-the-counter licenses for all but three management units (91, 92 and 96) east of Interstate 25. The licenses will be valid only on private land. The change reflects growing populations of turkeys in eastern Colorado and goes into effect in 2011.

Karl Licis, Special to The Denver Post
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,307 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
So does that mean there is no minimum size for 'eyes? Seems like a free-for-all...hope it doesn't deplete the fish for the future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,877 Posts
mogul buster said:
So does that mean there is no minimum size for 'eyes? Seems like a free-for-all...hope it doesn't deplete the fish for the future.
I think the goal was to reduce walleye numbers so some of them might get bigger. The Colorado DOW biologists responsible for Horsetooth spoke at a CWA meeting last spring about how stunted they had become due to lack of forage. Sorry, I don't recall the exact numbers. The consensus was that some "thinning of the herd" would make sense at Horsetooth.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,750 Posts
gofindyourowndamnfish said:
mogul buster said:
So does that mean there is no minimum size for 'eyes? Seems like a free-for-all...hope it doesn't deplete the fish for the future.
I think the goal was to reduce walleye numbers so some of them might get bigger. The Colorado DOW biologists responsible for Horsetooth spoke at a CWA meeting last spring about how stunted they had become due to lack of forage. Sorry, I don't recall the exact numbers. The consensus was that some "thinning of the herd" would make sense at Horsetooth.
I like it when the DOW gives and takes as we all should. I think the anglers are by far rthe best mangement tool and when the operation is done with respect for the resource then we all should respond by doing what is needed. It is the way it should work and hopefully we can keep some fisheries inside this realm.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,386 Posts
Horsetooth Reservoir

Remove special walleye regulations

Horsetooth Reservoir is a part of the Colorado-Big Thompson Water diversion system providing water for agricultural and municipal use. The water diverted from the west slope, upper Colorado River Drainage, is relatively cool and unproductive compared with other front range reservoirs that are fed from the lower South Platte River Basin. Horsetooth is a large draw for anglers and holds high numbers of smallmouth bass and walleye. Walleye are not stocked as this reservoir is one of the few in Colorado with a naturally reproducing population. As a result of these factors, this situation requires unique management strategies to maximize the potential of this reservoir. In 1984, rainbow smelt were introduced to Horsetooth Reservoir in an attempt to provide a forage base for a walleye population that had declined in numbers throughout the 1970’s. Perch had been the primary forage base but had failed to keep up with the predator population. Smelt establishment was highly successful and boosted the walleye population creating high numbers of large fish that grew very quickly. Unfortunately the smelt were highly efficient grazers of zooplankton, the foundation of the reservoir’s food chain. They proved to be an unsustainable, unbalanced forage that crashed the entire reservoir ecosystem in the mid 1990’s by quite literally eating themselves out of house and home, and were subsequently reduced to undetectable levels in the reservoir. Walleye growth rates during the apex of smelt in the reservoir supported the regulation that was put in place. With an abundance of forage, walleye grew past 18 inches in three or four years and had the potential to reach trophy sizes, requiring a limit on the take of large fish. The forage base for Horsetooth has not recovered since the crash of smelt. Complicating things, the reservoir was drawn down to dead pool from 2001 through 2003. This allowed a return of zooplankton, an opportunity to successfully establish spottail shiners, emerald shiners and gizzard shad and a reduction of walleye reproduction. However, when the reservoir was refilled, walleye reproduction skyrocketed past forage production creating a large number of young fish that immediately set back the forage introductions. Additionally, water quality changes in the reservoir began to lead to reduced habitat potential for some of the introduced forage species. This failure of the forage base led to the current situation in the reservoir where there are a high number of small walleye that grow very slowly. In an age and growth study done in 2008, all fish under 14 years old still failed to surpass the current minimum size limit. Attempts to 71 establish a forage base since 2004 have been unsuccessful. There are a very high number of predators in the system and while some years are better than others, the overall trend in walleye condition has been negative. The most current sampling shows that the walleye population does not approach the current limits, significantly impacting fishermen’s ability to harvest fish or enjoy quality fishing. In a creel study done in 2009, 212 anglers were interviewed about walleye fishing. Those anglers fished for a collective 492 hours and only 14 fish above 18 inches were caught with only 6 of these actually harvested. In the associated questionnaire, 62% of anglers did not keep walleye with 46% of them stating that the walleye were not big enough. 52% of all the Horsetooth anglers were not satisfied with walleye they caught with 50% stating “too small” as the reason. The solution to this stunting problem is population reduction. This will provide an opportunity for the forage fish to establish a more sustainable base. As the population is reduced, the forage fish should rebound and growth rates for the fish that remain will increase significantly. If the walleye population is not affected significantly, the forage will not increase and we will keep the same stunted situation that currently exists. We do not have the option to reduce stocking, as in other reservoirs where fish populations are manipulated by the number of fish planted. The best way to accomplish this is to allow the anglers to take more fish. Therefore our recommendation is to remove the special regulation currently in place on Horsetooth Reservoir. An intermediate regulation may not have a significant enough impact to reduce the population to
a size that allows a forage base recovery.
http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/7D67B6E6-DCFB-4BA7-A811-EC8A6187E1CE/0/Ch1Fishing.pdf

page 70...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,542 Posts
The new limit in the river below Chatfield is the dumbest reg they have ever passed!!!! What are those fish supposed to eat or swim in for that matter during summer? I could understand if they were going to net them and take them back to the lake ???

Horsetooth has forage problems they need to change something up there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,877 Posts
Neal/CO said:
The new limit in the river below Chatfield is the dumbest reg they have ever passed!!!! What are those fish supposed to eat or swim in for that matter during summer? I could understand if they were going to net them and take them back to the lake ???
I agree. I think the only reason for it was to make enforcement of the lake size limits easier. That way someone with undersized fish on the way out can't claim they caught them in the river, not in the lake.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,427 Posts
So does that mean there is no minimum size for 'eyes? Seems like a free-for-all...hope it doesn't deplete the fish for the future.
[/quote]

the state wide minimum size limit is 15 inche except trinidad. boulder and horsetooth will have no special regs, just the statewide regs
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,877 Posts
walleye seeker said:
the state wide minimum size limit is 15 inche except trinidad. boulder and horsetooth will have no special regs, just the statewide regs
There is no statewide minimum size for walleyes or saugeyes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,266 Posts
walleye seeker said:
So does that mean there is no minimum size for 'eyes? Seems like a free-for-all...hope it doesn't deplete the fish for the future.
the state wide minimum size limit is 15 inche except trinidad. boulder and horsetooth will have no special regs, just the statewide regs

[/quote]

CC,A-town and Chatty are both 18 " and over.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,750 Posts
Hey what about having "year closures" for species like eyes. If they have the size limits low on certain waters that need more protection maybe we could go to an odd even ability to keep fish schedule? As the mangers notice what makes a better year to close over another they can adjust what years to close the water from harvest and sentiment should stay high as the following year you will be able to harvest.

Thoughts?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,589 Posts
The pike guys should be happy about williams fork. We need to give credit to the dow for listening, at the meeting here in Granby when told about the proposal for a statewide no limit on pike, I said NO, pike aren't bad everywhere, there are a lot of anglers who target them and places like WF need to continue to be managed for them. The slot at Wf for pike is still all pike between 26"-34" need to be released. We also discussed working with the anglers on a new lake trout reg. that helps harvest smaller fish while putting some sort of limit/protection for larger ones and adaptive management type alternatives if needed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,877 Posts
I had not even noticed that Williams Fork exception until your post, Steve. Nice job! Thanks to the DOW people for recognizing that big pike are a destination species there and doing some management to keep the good sized ones around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,316 Posts
cochise said:
Hey what about having "year closures" for species like eyes. If they have the size limits low on certain waters that need more protection maybe we could go to an odd even ability to keep fish schedule? As the mangers notice what makes a better year to close over another they can adjust what years to close the water from harvest and sentiment should stay high as the following year you will be able to harvest.

Thoughts?
Fisherman is Colorado already have a hard enough time trying to measure a 18 inch walleye let alone knowing when their is a schedule of being able to keep fish. You could probably go to any lake ask 5 fisherman what the regs for the lake are my guess one of them will have no idea.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top