November 18, 2017

Go Back   FlyFishingInNH.com Forum > Conservation Section > Conservation Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-31-2016, 07:25 PM
Hunter Dan's Avatar
Hunter Dan Hunter Dan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: southern NH, originally central VT
Posts: 576
Default Uh-oh . . . here we go again . . .

Don't look now . . .

http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/news....html?news=349
__________________
Strike indicators are for wimps.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03-31-2016, 09:48 PM
GOLDNDEMON's Avatar
GOLDNDEMON GOLDNDEMON is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: NEWPORT, NH
Posts: 882
Default

That's exactly what I said when I read this. This needs a campaign slogan like "feel the walleye" or "make walleye great again" or "I'm with walleye".
__________________
"There's no crying in NH Fly Fishing"
Etsy.com/shop/SugarRiverFlyFishing
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-01-2016, 08:14 AM
jfflyfisher jfflyfisher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Nashua
Posts: 225
Default

Why can't we just leave things where they are and leave it be. If I want to catch walleye, I'll hop on a plane somewhere.

I don't understand who decides "Hey, let's blow a bunch of money on a non-native fish and neglect wild-indigenous species!" I would really like to kick them in the shin.
__________________
Everyone has to believe in something....i believe I'll go fishing.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-02-2016, 03:47 PM
Hunter Dan's Avatar
Hunter Dan Hunter Dan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: southern NH, originally central VT
Posts: 576
Default

Actually I make a few trips for walleye every year. And I don't have to hop on a plane. Just drive about an hour to fish the CT. river. Love me some walleye fishing. I had a very long phone conversation with NH F&G biologist Gabe Gries and he updated me on the whole thing. The reason why it's been a couple years since we heard about this the first time is because NH F&G has been doing their due diligence on this issue. Will adult walleyes target smaller salmonids? Sure. Will the bass and pike that are already in there do the same? Sure! Will salmonids, bass and pike target smaller walleyes - like the fingerlings NH F&G plans on releasing? Sure!

And as far as anybody who uses the "native species" argument . . . smallmouth bass and brown trout aren't native to Moore Reservoir either. And neither are Northern Pike, I don't think. So it's a question of, how far do we wish to go back in time to call something "native" or not.

I love fly fishing for trout. And I'm all for NH F&G spending less time and money stocking triploid freak trout and more time and money preserving and protecting NH's wild trout fisheries.

That being said, no one has proven to me yet based on what I've read that introducing walleyes into Moore Reservoir will kill the trout fishery in Moore Reservoir.

If they do stock them in Moore - I probably won't drive all the way up there to fish for them as I've got decent walleye fishing farther down the CT. River closer to home. And I'll still pass by Moore Reservoir in favor of the upper CT's trout fishery rather than fish for trout there too!
__________________
Strike indicators are for wimps.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-04-2016, 08:12 AM
jfflyfisher jfflyfisher is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Nashua
Posts: 225
Default

Dan you are absolutely right.

It is my belief (though not backed up with evidence so I could be wrong) the walleye will hurt the wild but, but this is not why I don't think Fish and Game shouldn't do this...

It comes down to money. F&G claims poverty every chance they get, and for all intents and purposes, they are. It's about their piss-poor money management. Why spend the money researching this and ultimately on the fingerlings when they can't support other programs. They neglect researching wild fish and helping those populations yet they spend money researching something that will cost them more money. Wild trout fisheries don't cost anything, by my definition a wild trout fishery is one that is self-sustaining.

I'd be all for walleye or tiger trout or whatever other odd game fish they wanted IF they weren't claiming poverty when it comes to protecting wild fish better. Maybe i'm jaded because I picked sea-runs and coastal brook trout and those are apparently Taboo to fisherman and F&G, and of course these opinions are mine and aren't necessarily true or accurate but hell...
__________________
Everyone has to believe in something....i believe I'll go fishing.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-04-2016, 10:52 AM
wet_fly_action's Avatar
wet_fly_action wet_fly_action is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Quincy, MA
Posts: 1,098
Default

Having been through the previous flame wars on the subject, nobody ever used a "native species" argument.There is a little known trophy wild trout fishery in the area (not in the reservoir itself) that most certainly would be negatively impacted by the introduction of walleye.
"But Moore already has smallmouth and pike! They eat trout!" you say? That is correct. However neither of those species will utilize the fast moving sections of that river system the way walleye will. It is that simple. As some of us have brought up before, there are efforts underway in several western states to eradicate introduced walleye populations because of the severely negative impact they have had on coldwater fisheries there.
The fact that one of the most outspoken advocates on this board for this walleye program isn't sure whether Northern Pike are native to Moore is of major concern to me. I mean no disrespect. Not everyone shares the same level of interest in the biology behind our fisheries. However it seems like the vast majority of fishermen have little interest in anything other than catching fish. Introductions of new species and put-and-take are examples of management strategies that are extremely popular with anglers, yet have been proven in study after study to be cost ineffective, damaging to native fish populations, have permanent, irreversible consequences, and fall short of delivering the quality fisheries they promise.
It doesn't matter how many people you can rally to support either side. This is a situation not unlike didymo where once the species is introduced to the system it is for all intents and purposes impossible to remove. NHF&G should be looking at science and thinking long term, not seeing which side can stack the most people into a room and deciding how to proceed based on that.
BTW, Northern Pike are not native to NH. http://www.wildlife.state.nh.us/fish...hern-pike.html
__________________
How good to be here, in the green, dark, cool, mountains, near a ruddy camp fire, with the loneliness and beauty of nature at hand, and in my ears the music of a murmuring stream!
-Zane Grey
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-04-2016, 02:29 PM
BrookieSlayah BrookieSlayah is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Lakes Region
Posts: 284
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jfflyfisher View Post
Dan you are absolutely right.

It is my belief (though not backed up with evidence so I could be wrong) the walleye will hurt the wild but, but this is not why I don't think Fish and Game shouldn't do this...

It comes down to money. F&G claims poverty every chance they get, and for all intents and purposes, they are. It's about their piss-poor money management. Why spend the money researching this and ultimately on the fingerlings when they can't support other programs. They neglect researching wild fish and helping those populations yet they spend money researching something that will cost them more money. Wild trout fisheries don't cost anything, by my definition a wild trout fishery is one that is self-sustaining.

I'd be all for walleye or tiger trout or whatever other odd game fish they wanted IF they weren't claiming poverty when it comes to protecting wild fish better. Maybe i'm jaded because I picked sea-runs and coastal brook trout and those are apparently Taboo to fisherman and F&G, and of course these opinions are mine and aren't necessarily true or accurate but hell...
I believe VT is heading this walleye program but I may be wrong?
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-04-2016, 04:16 PM
Steve H.'s Avatar
Steve H. Steve H. is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hampton, NH (and Eustis, ME)
Posts: 2,024
Default

Wouldn't the dam at Gilman, VT (near Dalton, NH) keep the walleye from ascending the Connecticut River much beyond the reservoir? From Google Maps it looks like it's only a quarter mile or so (if that) upriver.

There are already walleye below the reservoir, so any drop-downs shouldn't be a concern, right? Is the concern that they will get up river well beyond the reservoir itself?
__________________
It is a plain fact, however, that downstream fishing with a non-imitative fly (lure, in the British sense) does not mix comfortably with upstream imitative fishing...I'll stay out of the argument about whether this technique is really fly fishing. In terms of interest, it is for me ahead of most downstream fishing and spinning. And I've already opined that spinning is better than staying at home with the television set.

Datus Proper, "What The Trout Said"
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-04-2016, 10:00 PM
wet_fly_action's Avatar
wet_fly_action wet_fly_action is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Quincy, MA
Posts: 1,098
Default

From what I remember from last time, there are several dams between the walleye's current range and the Moore Reservoir. Drop downs are a major concern.
__________________
How good to be here, in the green, dark, cool, mountains, near a ruddy camp fire, with the loneliness and beauty of nature at hand, and in my ears the music of a murmuring stream!
-Zane Grey
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-05-2016, 06:50 AM
Hunter Dan's Avatar
Hunter Dan Hunter Dan is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: southern NH, originally central VT
Posts: 576
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wet_fly_action View Post
From what I remember from last time, there are several dams between the walleye's current range and the Moore Reservoir. Drop downs are a major concern.
So you admit then, that they won't get upstream?

And as for pike - I thought that pike were non-native just like bass and walleye but I was in a hurry when I typed that post and didn't want to take the time to check my facts. The fact that they are non-native only helps my argument.

But I completely agree with you on NH F&G's financially unsound practices. Like their arcane pheasant stocking (i.e. flatlander peppering?) program. And this stupid bobcat hunting/trapping proposal which will cost $22,000.00 to implement and only yield $5,000.00 in revenue. Although I'm sure they'll have a fee to participate in the bobcat lottery so they will make some more on that. But still I don't think very many people will apply for the bobcat lottery like they do for the moose lottery so I don't think any proceeds from lottery fees will allow them to break even.

These - along with their reluctance to focus on wild trout fisheries, are ludicrous. And if you question my commitment to wild trout - I urge you to check out the fall issue of Backcountry Journal - the quarterly publication of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers - look around . . . there's a thread on here about it.
__________________
Strike indicators are for wimps.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not 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

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:21 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.