Chubs at Fish Lake and a tagged perch

[PBH]

[quote Gemcityslayer]
My point was: just let the real experts decide what is best or what is worth trying. If they decide it's time to poison the lake - great, I respect their decision whatever it is. [/quote]

So if I told you they were working on NEPA right now to get approvals in place to treat Scofield with rotenone, would you respect that decision?


I too would like to see our biologists have the ability to do what they think is right. This is not how it works, however. Utahn's wanted a voice, and a voice they now have. Sometimes to the detriment of the very wildlife we continue to force our own beliefs in management on. The public wants to be heard, and the DWR is forced to appease the public, even when they [biologists / experts] know what is best.

It's all about population management. If you can't manage the population, then you are left with nothing. It doesn't matter if it's chubs, perch, pike, suckers, carp, walleye, brook trout, brown trout, or bluegill. If you can't control their population numbers, you are left with a fishery that nobody will fish. Control the numbers, and you have something.

Scofield will never be a "world class" fishery with uncontrolled chub populations.



My name is PBH. I'm an armchair biologist.
[signature]

[Fowl-Hook]

4th or 5th time for Rotenone at Scofield, Quick learning Biologist really have it figured out this time.
[signature]

[wormandbobber]

So, any time biologists do something 4 or 5 times it is a failure? I would consider every one of the rotenone treatments at Schofield major successes...just look at the money it saved the public! And, look at the increase in fishing pressure/angler hours!
[signature]

[Fishrmn]

↑⇑⇡☝︎⬆︎⇧⇪⥣↟⟰⤊
Yep!



[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF]
[signature]

[PBH]

[quote Dog-lover]4th or 5th time for Rotenone at Scofield, Quick learning Biologist really have it figured out this time.[/quote]


I would have to say just the opposite. If they don't do it a 6th (?) time, then they obviously are not quick learners!

rotenone works, and you'd have a viable fishery in a very short time!
[signature]

[Fishrmn]

Imagine where we'd be if they hadn't used rotenone? 50 years of what we're seeing now. Nobody fishing there, and no fish worth wasting your time. But there'd be a few people catching bait. And the UDWR would rate the fishing as fair on their fishing report.



[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF]
[signature]

[a_bow_nut]

[quote Dog-lover]4th or 5th time for Rotenone at Scofield, Quick learning Biologist really have it figured out this time.[/quote]

With that kind of reasoning whart are your thoughts on the hundreds of thousands of trout that they plant every single year?

Isn't that just a waste of time and money to?
[signature]

[Fishrmn]

[quote Gemcityslayer]I respect the professional's opinions more than the "arm chair biologists" or even the general fishing public. Sometimes anglers want this or that and then put pressure on our officials to fulfill their agenda.

My point was: just let the real experts decide what is best or what is worth trying. If they decide it's time to poison the lake - great, I respect their decision whatever it is. I never claimed to be an expert.

But it is clear they thought it was worth trying to take advantage of the abundant chub population by adding predators. It's easy for us to second guess their decisions when they don't work out. But all they can do is what they think is best - sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't.[/quote]

I wish I had kept the email that I got from the Cold Water Coordinator when he responded to my questions about Scofield. He mentioned that his recommendation in 2005 was to chemically rehabilitate the reservoir. [red][size 6]ROTENONE[/size][/red]
But it wasn't in the budget, and wasn't popular because of all of the hoops that must be jumped through.

The Tiger Trout would've been a good thing, if they'd been planted before the chubs got established. But they were too little, too late. At this point the rotenone would've been cheaper, more effective, and faster. 12 years and counting.



[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF]
[signature]