+- Fishing Forum (https://bigfishtackle.com/forum)
+-- Forum: Utah Fishing Forum (https://bigfishtackle.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=386)
+--- Forum: Utah Fishing General (https://bigfishtackle.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?fid=58)
+--- Thread: Yet another Read (/showthread.php?tid=1022035)
Yet another Read - k2muskie - 09-02-2017
Another interesting read.
https://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-news/2093-three-new-fish-species-at-scofield.html?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
[signature]
Re: [k2muskie] Yet another Read - dubob - 09-03-2017
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]I have never fished Scofield and probably never will, but that sounds like a good plan to me. Based on the successful wiper plant in East Canyon, that species should do well in Scofield as well. And the muskies should put a big dent in the chub population.
[/size][/#800000][/font]
[signature]
Re: [k2muskie] Yet another Read - wiper_junkie - 09-03-2017
Thanks for posting this Kim ;0) In a few years Scofield will be back on my radar. How many muskies did they put in? Thanks, Fred.
[signature]
Re: [k2muskie] Yet another Read - Fishrmn - 09-04-2017
Strange, how the people who haven't fished, and probably won't fish, at Scofield think that this is such a great idea. I'm a huge fan of Wipers, but they won't do well at Scofield . They can't put enough Walleyes in to compare with what happened at Starvation. And Tiger Muskies don't seem to put much of a hurt on the populations of the species that they feed on either.
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF]
[signature]
Re: [Fishrmn] Yet another Read - Anglinarcher - 09-04-2017
Fishrmn, I feel your pain, and I understand your concerns, and we even agree about the wipers in Scofield, but....
Or should I have stated it [#000000][size 7]BUT[#000000][size 3], because it is a big but, if done properly their plan will work. I just hope the committee is composed of people with knowledge and experience, with the willpower to follow through.[/size][/#000000][/size][/#000000]
First the questions,
[font "Times New Roman"]
[/font]
[url "http://www.bigfishtackle.com/cgi-bin/community/community.cgi?do=user_page;pg=user_profile_view.html;username=dubob"]dubob[/url], East Canyon Lake has an elevation of about 5700 feet. Compare this to the elevation of Scofield of 7630 feet. this almost 2000 feet difference means a huge difference in season length and seasonal average temperature. I cannot find any reported success with Strippers, White Bass, or the their cross, Wipers, at that elevation. [#ff0000] I have serious concerns, but if we don't give it a try, we will never know[/#ff0000].
[url "http://www.bigfishtackle.com/cgi-bin/community/community.cgi?do=user_page;pg=user_profile_view.html;username=wiper_junkie"]wiper_junkie[/url]
[font "Times New Roman"][size 3] Fred, sometimes it is not the numbers but the size. LOL [#ff0000]They stocked ~5500 but they were less then 4" in length[/#ff0000]. [/size][/font]
I know that it is difficult to determine how many will survive, but probably less then 10% will grow to chub eating size. It would have been less if they were put in smaller, more if they were put in larger, but the cost of feeding these eating machines to larger size is huge. I would have put 10 times that number, but I expect they did not have them available at this time.
[url "http://www.utahfishinginfo.com/dwr/fishstockingreport.php"]http://www.utahfishinginfo.com/dwr/fishstockingreport.php[/url]
[font "Times New Roman"] Next year they should be in the mid to upper teens and they will be eating those chubs up to 6" or more. Don't expect to catch many for some time, they will have so much protein and fat that they will be lazy and monster slobs for some time. With life spans of about 10 years, they will be a force to be reckoned with.[/font]
[font "Times New Roman"]
[/font]
[font "Times New Roman"]Now, my input. Sterile Walleye would do well in Scofield, and if you overstock them they will clean up chubs in a hurry. They are native to the far north so cold short seasons are not a problem. Additionally, because they cannot spawn, they will die off and the prized rainbows can be phased back in.[/font]
[font "Times New Roman"]
[/font]
[font "Times New Roman"]I have seen Tiger Muskies clean lakes out in Idaho (Hauser)and Washington (Silver), and I do mean clean them out. If enough are put in, nothing is safe, even small Tiger Muskies. I have seen them clean out perch, crappie, carp, yes common carp, bullhead catfish, well anything that swims. The key is that you need to balance the numbers. They overstocked the two lakes I am talking about to do just that and then lifted the limits on the Tiger Muskies to allow the anglers to keep "trophies". When the numbers were down, and the local Musky club lobbied, they put a single over 50" fish limit on them. I expect that instead Utah will creep up on the numbers they want. You won't get the chubs out as fast with the creep up way, but you can put rainbow in faster. [/font]
[font "Times New Roman"]
[/font]
[font "Times New Roman"]The cutties will help, and they are clearly stocking lots of them right now. As they get bigger, the Strawberry effect will kick in.[/font]
[font "Times New Roman"]
[/font]
[font "Times New Roman"]You may never get all of the chubs out, but you can get them down, reduce or eliminate the walleye, "wiper", Tiger Muskie, etc., stocking, then increase the "trout" stocks.[/font]
[font "Times New Roman"][fishin][/font]
[font "Times New Roman"]
[/font]
[font "Times New Roman"]
[/font]
[font "Times New Roman"]
[/font]
[signature]
Re: [Anglinarcher] Yet another Read - Fishrmn - 09-04-2017
[quote Anglinarcher]Or should I have stated it [#000000][size 7]BUT[#000000][size 3], because it is a big but, if done properly their plan will work. I just hope the committee is composed of people with knowledge and experience, with the willpower to follow through.[/size][/#000000][/size][/#000000][/quote]
You mean like their plan from the last 12 years has worked?!?
It hasn't, and the new one won't. That's why they've said, [size 6]AGAIN[/size], that they need to let this experiment run for five years, and that they will man up and poison the reservoir if this doesn't work.
Wipers won't work.
The UDWR admits that the Tiger Muskies won't do anything to control the chubs, but will only add a new sport fish to the fishery.
Cutthroats haven't been able to do a thing. They wind up being sacrificial lambs. They starve nearly to death.
Tiger Trout and Cutthroats did quite well, when they had 300,000 to 500,000 fingerling Rainbows every year to supplement their diet. Once the UDWR quit planting the fingerling Rainbows, the big Tigers disappeared.
They can't create enough sterile Walleyes to compare to what happened at Starvation with Walleyes and Utah Chubs..... And that took nearly 30 years to see the results.
Nope... It is time to poison Scofield.
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF]
[signature]
Re: [k2muskie] Yet another Read - doggonefishin - 09-04-2017
While I strongly favor rotenone for Scofield, since the DWR refuses to do it, I am happy they are putting in these other fish. At least some anglers can enjoy the lake in the near future. I'm especially happy for the tiger musky folks who seem to really put a great effort in enhancing their sport. Scofield should be really good for them.
This subject has been beaten to death on here but there is one more thing I wanted to add. The listed article said the following.
"In fall 2016, the DWR conducted an online survey. The survey asked anglers what species they would like to pursue at Scofield and whether they would support another rotenone treatment. Responses from some 2,500 anglers across Utah revealed strong public support for introducing new species to the reservoir. Doing another rotenone treatment received mixed support."
The actual results were discussed in this thread.
http://www.bigfishtackle.com/cgi-bin/gforum/gforum.cgi?post=993620;#993620
In the survey, rotenone was favored by the respondents by a 2-1 margain.
Favor or strongly favor rotenone: 53.14%
Neutral: 19.20%
Oppose or strongly oppose rotenone: 27.66%
It seems disingenuous to me for the DWR to write what they did in this article when rotenone was favored by a 2-1 margain.
[signature]
Re: [doggonefishin] Yet another Read - Fishrmn - 09-04-2017
It has been beaten to death. And yet the UDWR refuses to do what the anglers want. I like the idea of getting input from anglers, but I fail to see why someone who has never fished Scofield, has no intentions of fishing Scofield, and who doesn't like the type of fishing being offered at Scofield should have much, if anything, to say about the future of the fishery.
One of the most common complaints about Strawberry is the lack of Rainbow Trout. Scofield was managed as a Rainbow Trout fishery, and was extremely popular because of that. It is a ghost town now.
I don't know what you guys do for a living. But if you were given a task, say build a house, or fix a road, and 12 years later you had nothing to show for it, you'd be looking for another job. The UDWR has been procrastinating for 12 years. They knew the chubs were coming back before that. They were told of chubs in 1997. (Toasty) That's 20 years. They found them in their own nets in 2000. That's 17 years. They put Tiger Trout in back in 2005. That's 12 years. When are they gonna do something that works, instead of experimenting?
Quote:The new management plan for Scofield Reservoir has a lifespan of five years. If the Utah chub population is not sufficiently reduced in that time, or if the new species fail to thrive, the reservoir will be treated with rotenone, Hart says.
That's 25 years after they were told of a problem. 23 years after they admitted the problem. 17 years of working on the problem. Does anyone see a pattern here?
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF]
[signature]
Re: [Fishrmn] Yet another Read - Anglinarcher - 09-05-2017
[url "http://www.bigfishtackle.com/cgi-bin/community/community.cgi?do=user_page;pg=user_profile_view.html;username=Fishrmn"]Fishrmn[/url],
While I don't totally agree, I do love your passion.
Have you considered trying to get on with the Department, or the volunteer committee?
Einstein did also say that insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting a different result. If you believe that they are doing that, then start running a personal complain to get in a position of power so YOU can make that difference.
ONE PERSON CAN make a difference, and you can be that one person.
[signature]
Re: [Fishrmn] Yet another Read - dubob - 09-05-2017
[quote Fishrmn] I'm a huge fan of Wipers, but they won't do well at Scofield.[/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]Respectfully, I'd like to see the scientific data that supports that; can you provide a link?[/#800000][/font]
[signature]
Re: [Anglinarcher] Yet another Read - dubob - 09-05-2017
[quote Anglinarcher][#000000][#000000]I just hope the committee is composed of people with knowledge and experience, with the willpower to follow through.[/#000000][/#000000][/quote]
Quote:The committee included biologists, Scofield residents and volunteers who took the survey. Several sportsmen organizations were also represented, including the state's Blue Ribbon Fisheries Council, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, the DWR's Southeastern Regional Advisory Council, and the Utah Wildlife Board.[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]Sounds to me like they have a good committee. [
][/#800000][/font][signature]
Re: [dubob] Yet another Read - PBH - 09-06-2017
[quote dubob][quote Fishrmn] I'm a huge fan of Wipers, but they won't do well at Scofield.[/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]Respectfully, I'd like to see the scientific data that supports that; can you provide a link?[/#800000][/font][/quote]
There isn't a lot of evidence to show that they won't. But that's because there aren't wipers anywhere at that elevation. Sometimes there are reasons why fisheries managers don't do certain things, and they don't need a peer reviewed article to understand why certain things won't work.
Time will tell. I'm hoping for good, but expecting the same old same old.
[signature]
Re: [PBH] Yet another Read - Fishrmn - 09-06-2017
I'd love to see Peacock Bass in Utah. Maybe they should put them in Scofield. Hey, they've got almost the same chance as Wipers at that elevation and climate.
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF]
[signature]
Re: [Fishrmn] Yet another Read - doggonefishin - 09-06-2017
Since they are throwing everything else in there, they could always dump some perch in too. [
] We know that perch are kryptonite for chub populations. It would give me a reason to ice fish there again too. [cool][
][signature]
Re: [PBH] Yet another Read - dubob - 09-07-2017
[quote PBH]There isn't a lot of evidence to show that they won't. But that's because there aren't wipers anywhere at that elevation.[/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]Scofield Reservoir has an elevation of 7618 ft. The elevations of 12 Utah reservoirs (not counting community ponds) I found where wipers have been stocked range from Willard Bay at 4200 ft all the way up to New Canyon Reservoir at 8871 ft. Yes, wipers were stocked in New Canyon in 2011 – about 3500 of them. I can find no data that shows the success of those plantings. And while a little lower than Scofield in elevation, both Jordanelle (6166 ft) and Otter Creek (6372 ft) have had successful plantings. So perhaps wipers in Scofield might just be feasible. As you said, time will tell.[/size][/#800000][/font]
[signature]
Re: [dubob] Yet another Read - PBH - 09-07-2017
i don't know anything about New Canyon.
Has anyone caught a wiper from Jordanelle?
Has anyone caught a wiper from Otter Creek?
Scofield is still 1300 feet higher than Otter Creek.
Time will tell. I'm guessing the DWR is already working on a stockpile of rotenone for the treatment in 5 years. [cool]
[signature]
Re: [PBH] Yet another Read - Fishrmn - 09-07-2017
[quote PBH]Time will tell. I'm guessing the DWR is already working on a stockpile of rotenone for the treatment in 5 years. [cool][/quote]
Well... They won't be using any of the rotenone that they bought to poison Yuba with. [crazy]
I'm still amazed at how quickly they made plans to treat Yuba, and how quickly they moved to get Red Fleet treated and rehabilitated, and how solid their plans are to treat Pelican Lake, but they keep waffling on Scofield. Yes, they recommended rotenone years ago.
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF]
[signature]