They could have spent less putting a bounty on the fish and encouraging anglers to take and keep lake trout. You could even increase the limit. Maybe offer a prize for the largest fish caught weekly...
E
eugene1
0
Moderator
They've done this in other lakes and I don't think it makes a big enough dent. With netting, they can swoop up almost all of the spawners at the same time since they are concentrated in certain areas.
chrisohm said:
They could have spent less putting a bounty on the fish and encouraging anglers to take and keep lake trout. You could even increase the limit. Maybe offer a prize for the largest fish caught weekly...
The more they use netting as a means to get rid of the fish, the more native trout they are eradicating in the process. Not much can really be done that won't impact something else.
troutdude
Moderator
chrisohm said:
They could have spent less putting a bounty on the fish and encouraging anglers to take and keep lake trout. You could even increase the limit. Maybe offer a prize for the largest fish caught weekly...
I helped USGS in their eradication efforts on a different Montana lake. They leave the nets in place for an hour or so and then check them from a boat. We released lots of live cutts and kept lots of live lake trout for a tracking/implanting program. I don't think I saw a single fish killed in the nets.
Best,
J
JeannaJigs
0
It's better than just dumping rotenone in the water and starting completely over. Relying on anglers to put a dent in the population would never pan out, and who wants to keep those things in large quantities? They taste absolutely awful.