Posts: 386
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
I picked up the 07 fishing regulations and was breezing through them when I read this on page 20 under Strawberry Rreservoir:
Any trout with cutthroat characteristics (not necessarily jaw slashing) is considered to be a cutthroat trout . Slash marks under the jaw should not to be used to distinguish Bear Lake cutthroat trout from rainbow trout at Strawberry. Slashing is sometimes absent on Bear Lake cutthroats, and is sometimes present on rainbows. Better characteristics are deep orange pelvic and anal fins on the cutthroats and white tipped pink to gray-green pelvic and anal fins on the rainbows. Rainbows also have the pinkish lateral stripe on the sides.
Sounds as if there are no slash marks on a fish but it has the spots and mostly the orange fins, it is a cutt... turn it loose. If it looks like a rainbow with all the rainbow markings but has the orange cutts under the jaw, it is a rainbow and not a cutt. I have always been under the impression that any cutt marks on the fish and it went back. Glad to see the DWR clearup that mis-conception as I know I have turned back some good rainbow that had slashes. I figured that they were "cuttbows", but that has been cleared up in previous threads (no such critter at the berry). I think I'll pay closer attention to the fin color and start ridding the berry of some of those pesky bows.
[signature]
Posts: 2,561
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation:
0
Much better clarification this year. I have turned bows back in the past (that I knew were in fact bows) because they had the slash. [  ]
[signature]
Posts: 3,093
Threads: 24
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
13
Rediculous. Abosulutely rediculous!
Why on earth is the DWR trying to change the "clarification" at Strawberry. Now, more people will be keeping cutts due to mis-identification. More people will have built-in excuses. Fewer tickets will be written because of the added confusion.
Why didn't they do something closer to the Panguitch Lake regulations put into place for 2007? At Pang all trout from 15 to 22 inches must be immediately released.
If the cutts at strawberry are so important, then why in the world is the DWR setting things up so that anglers can "mistakenly" keep them? Strawberry -- all trout with cutthroat markings except for gill slashes are considered cutts. Stupid!!! Why have that exception? Just make it all trout.
Sorry for the rant...
__________________________________________________________
PBH love to fish for trout using Mojo lures.
[signature]
Posts: 864
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2003
Reputation:
0
Don't apologize -- I think you're right! As many fishermen that keep illegal cutts up there now, that number probably will increase due to this ambiguous loophole they've put into the reading of the fishing guide. And even if you give folks the benefit of the doubt, it's becoming necessary to have a fisheries biologist's degree to identify all the admitted inconsistancies in the fish's appearance.
My rant is now over, too.
[signature]
Posts: 1,791
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
I have came to the conclusion that if I catch a fish between 15-22 inches there is 99% chance it is a cutt. If not a rainbow is substancially different looking than a cut. The thing that helps me differenciate is the cutts are slender, while the bows take on much more of a football shape.
[signature]
Posts: 6,122
Threads: 3
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
1
Yes you are ranting but you are right 15" to 22" should be let go.....
Did I just agree with PBH I need a Dr.
.
[signature]
Posts: 15,634
Threads: 1,329
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
16
[size 1]"The thing that helps me differenciate is the cutts are slender, while the bows take on much more of a football shape."[/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1]Most of the time this is true, but not always. I have caught a few football shaped cutts at Strawberry.[/size]
[signature]
Posts: 2,402
Threads: 6
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation:
0
I still say that they are the hybrid cut-bows that everyone is saying doesn't exist. When they have been crossbreeding like that, both species show both of the characteristics. Simple as that.
Now it's harder than ever to tell them apart. There should just be the size limit and call it good- no matter what species it might be.
Hey I have a solution! Someone plant some carp in there! That will take care of any mix ups! heheh
[signature]
Posts: 2,285
Threads: 1
Joined: Aug 2006
Reputation:
0
Yea all things 15-22 should swim off for another day. As for differences between the two, i also look at the mouth. Cuts have that huge mouth when rainbows (even big ones) seem to look small to me.
[signature]
Posts: 2,396
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2006
Reputation:
0
I think the changes come to due to a article that was printed in the SL Trib that people were getting ticketed for keeping the correct fish. I think there was a bit of confusion from state rangers on which fish could be kept. The article listed some rangers would ticket you if you had fish with cutt markings and some with out. All have to try to see if I cant find the article but it basically stated that fisherman from strawberry felt there were being ticketed infairly.
[signature]
Posts: 1,773
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
0
Until the regs change to a slot of 15" to 22" all inclusive, I like the new wording much more than before. I don't see how this will give an excuse for poaching Cutthroat Trout, but rather it clarifies what Rainbow Trout are legal.
People that poach fish will do it even with a slot. It's just in their nature to keep fish. They know that there is a very slim chance that they will get caught.
I would love to see the regs change and even become artificial only, but I don't see that happening in the near future.
[signature]
Posts: 417
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
0
A few years back, I had two wardens stop and talk to me about a fish my grandson caught. I thought it was a rainbow. The first warden came over to check it out and told me it was a cutt. I showed him what I was looking at and he agreed it was a rainbow. The other warden said, no it was a cutt and that was it.
Lucky for me, it was under the slot. But it scared the heck out of me when they don't know for sure either.
If it is questionable at all, it goes back.
[signature]
Posts: 1,428
Threads: 19
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
15
I don't like the new wording at all...the old wording was put in place to protect cutthroat by forcing anglers to release any fish that was questionable. The people ticketed in the past for keeping fish with cutthroat markings were ticketed fairly and should have been punished even if they were keeping rainbows--the law was specific (release any fish with cutthroat characteristics). As it is now, the wording in the proclamation doesn't protect the cutts as much and opens up a can of worms that will allow more people to mistakenly keep the wrong fish.
[signature]
Posts: 36,143
Threads: 273
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
62
[cool][#0000ff]The scariest part of the whole situation is that the new wording was instituted more for the benefit of the DWR folks, and not the fishermen. [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Rainbows are clearly rainbows...with the rainbow markings, the red gill covers and the different fins. It should not take a degree in biology to be able to confuse them with cutthroat, but I have witnessed several misidentifications in the field by DWR personnel. [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]That is disgusting. And, it was the reason for the article in the paper. Good honest law-abiding anglers (who can tell the difference) were getting tickets from COs who couldn't tell the difference.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]I'm in favor of the universal standard for the slot limit too, just because it makes sense. Not because it will avoid confusion.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 1,428
Threads: 19
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
15
No, not true Tubedude...people were getting tickets for keeping rainbows with cutthroat markings (Again, the law specifcally stated that any fish with cutthroat markings was to be immediately released--whether rainbow or not!) which was against the law. Also, the people giving the tickets were not COs or DWR personnel, but people from the Sheriff's department...
[signature]
Posts: 36,143
Threads: 273
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
62
[cool][#0000ff]Right you are. The individual that got a ticket and prompted the article was ticketed by non-DWR officers. And you are also right about the ambiguous wording...cutthroat markings...being the standard that everybody used. But, I still say that KNOWLEDGEABLE officials should have KNOWN that rainbows with cutt slashes are still rainbows. Roger and Walt recognized the reason for the confusion and tried to make changes.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Unfortunately, some folks can find a way to complicate even the simple things.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 1,428
Threads: 19
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
15
Mistaken identity. People have a hard time telling the difference between cutts and rainbows. They are honest mistakes. It happens. The old regulation at Strawberry stated:
Any trout with cutthroat markings is considered to be a cutthroat trout.
So, an angler keeps a Rainbow Trout with cutthroat markings, and he recieves a citation by the local sheriff's dept. The citation is a GOOD thing. The trout had "cutthroat markings" making it an illegal trout to keep. The citation was warranted...
...that is until Alan Ward got involved. "Just because it has a slash under the jaw doesn't mean it is a cutthroat," said Strawberry Project leader Alan Ward.
While the comment is true, under the current regulations the fish in question was an illegal fish to keep, rainbow or not. It had cutthroat markings, and any trout with cutthroat markings is considered a cutthroat.
According to the article, "Division of Wildlife Resources conservation officers are aware of the differences and are less likely to cite an angler in possession of a rainbow with a slash, but Forest Service rangers and Wasatch County sheriffs also patrol the reservoir." Wait a minute -- I thought that the regulations said that "any trout with cutthroat markings is considered to be a cutthroat trout".
So, the next thing on the agenda is a regualtion change -- or as Roger Wilson put it, a clarification: "...just looking to clarify the distinguishing characteristics between a cutthroat and a rainbow..."
My question is this: why are the regulations in place? What is the purpose of this regulation? Isn't it to protect fish of potentially being predators to utah chubs--especially cutts? Aren't rainbows also capable of being predators albeit not as much as cutts? So, now instead of protecting more potential chub predators, aren't we opening up the possiblity of harvesting these fish? Isn't this a bad thing?
I think the regs should be changed so that no trout in the slot is allowed to be kept!
[signature]
Posts: 182
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
0
If you can't tell the difference between a rainbow and a cutt you don't deserve to keep any fish from Strawberry. And if you can't tell the difference as a peace officer, you shouldn't be handing out tickets.
Slayer
[signature]
Posts: 1,428
Threads: 19
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
15
[reply]If you can't tell the difference between a rainbow and a cutt you don't deserve to keep any fish from Strawberry.
And if you can't tell the difference as a peace officer, you shouldn't be handing out tickets.
[/reply]
1) I agree with the first quote...
2) But, the second part is false...according to the old regulations, it was illegal to keep any fish with cutthroat markings--rainbow or not! So, someone from the sherriff's department or a CO was perfectly right in citing someone who kept a rainbow if the fish had cutthroat markings.
[signature]
Posts: 2,518
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
First, I do agree that a universal 15-22 inch slot for all trout would be the easiest for both the sportsmen and law enforcement.
However, if the DWR is absolutely intent on having the rainbows available for harvest at all sizes, then what about this idea. Write the regs to say that all 15-22 inchers should be released except for those fish that have the adipose fin clipped, and clip all of the planted rainbows and not the cutts. (similar to Bear lakes regs) Even the most novice angler and the most overworked sheriffs deputy should be able to determine if an adipose fin is clipped. It would involve more work and cost at the outset though to clip the fins. If a cutt loses his adipose fin in the course of living, it would be a bummer for that fish, but we would lose a lot less cutts overall than we would with the current regs.
Just an idea.
[signature]
|
