Is Utah Lake worth saving?

[T-DOG91]

For what it's worth, lines 48-50 do say be it resolved to restore cutts to Utah lake. Along with Junies
[signature]

[PBH]

[quote T-DOG91]For what it's worth, lines 48-50 do say be it resolved to restore cutts to Utah lake. Along with Junies[/quote]

Yep. Native fish. Shouldn't it be that way? Improve and restore habitat to encourage native species and plants to re-establish. Like i said: fix the habitat and then manage for the appropriate species.
[signature]

[T-DOG91]

Not trying to ruffle to many feathers, but is specifies bonneville cutthroat. So your first post would be incorrect based on that. It specifically calls to restore to a trout fishery in lines 48-50. You are correct about the native part.
[signature]

[doggonefishin]

[quote TubeDude][#0000FF]I got to thinking about your mention of early explorers seeing native Americans catching and processing "carp". You surmised that they were probably mistaken in their species ID and that the fish were likely "pikeminnows". I suspect they were more likely suckers or redhorse. Many native Americans harvested suckers as they made their annual spawning runs upstream from lakes...as they used to do in Utah Lake. And their puckery lips could have easily been mistaken for carp mouths. But just my guess.
[/#0000FF][/quote]


I was recently reading an account of the Hole in the Rock pioneer expedition. In it, there is an account of members of the advance party catching 7-10 lb fish they called "white salmon". Obviously, salmon weren't in the Colorado river in 1879 and these fish were in reality pikeminnows or suckers. Modern readers probably shouldn't expect a high level of accuracy in fish ID from explorers and pioneers of that era. It does make for interesting reading however.

Nevertheless, large trout in UL during pioneer times is a verified fact as discussed by others and they even persisted into the 1930's.
[signature]

[TubeDude]

[#0000FF]Yeah, verily. Sometimes we have to avoid taking fish identification by early explorers too seriously. A good example is the attached dissertation on the "lake trout" of Utah Lake...written in the late 1800s by a surveyor working in the area.

"Mormon macks"?
[/#0000FF]
[signature]

[PBH]

[quote TubeDude][#0000ff]Yeah, verily. Sometimes we have to avoid taking fish identification by early explorers too seriously. A good example is the attached dissertation on the "lake trout" of Utah Lake...written in the late 1800s by a surveyor working in the area.

"Mormon macks"?
[/#0000ff][/quote]

Tube -- that article is interesting, and very typical of many articles we see in our newspapers today.

There is conflicting information in that article, the most notable in the very first sentence where the author notes "...as it is sometimes called, the brook and speckled trout...". However, if you look below the title they have very clearly stated the latin name of the trout in question: Salmo Virginalis, Girard. This latin name is specifically that of the Rio Grande cutthroat trout, and was mistakenly used early on as the name for Bonneville cutthroat trout. The rest of the article describes "lake" trout characteristics commonly associated with cutthroat trout.

So, while the article makes things a bit cloudy, it also very accurately describes cutthroat. He even mentions "the same fish in the Yellowstone region" and mentions spawning in mountain springs (lake trout are lake spawners).

Most early settlers and explorers were very good with identification and very specific with characteristics to identify plant and animal species. This article just has a couple mistakes, that most readers with some education can identify and understand the true identification: Bonneville cutthroat trout.
[signature]

[PBH]

"Trout and Salmon of North America" (Robert Behnke)

In the late 1800s and early 1900s, Bonneville basin cutthroat trout were variously classified as "Salmo vifginalis," S. mykiss virginalis," and "S. clarki virginalis."
"Salmo virginalis" was the name given in 1856 to Rio Grande cutthroat trout collected from Ute Creek in the San Luis Valley of southern Colorado. Somehow Ute Creek became "Utah Creek" in the early literature and was assumed to be a stream in the Bonneville basin of Utah.
George Suckley, a surgeon-naturalist with the Pacific Railroad Survey during teh 1850s, compiled a manuscriipt, called "On the North American Species of Salmon and Trout", that he completed in 1861 and published in 1874. In this work, Suckley mentions a "variety" of "Salmo virginalis" that occurs in Utah Lake. When he compared the Utah Lake specimens with other cutthroat specimens from the Bonneville basin, Suckley saw that lake specimens were "less spotted". He wrote: "for this variety or kind we will, for the present, apply the provisional name of Salmo utah." Existence in a large lake environment results in a silvery coloration with large, round spots modified into small, irregularly shaped, speckle-like spotting. Although Suckley intended the name "utah" only to distinguish the cutthroat trout of Utah Lake from other Bonneville basin cutthroat trout, which he classified as "Salmo virginalis," the name "utah" is the first name published for any Bonneville basin cutthroat trout, and "Oncorhynchus clarki utah" is now the subspecies name for all cutthroat trout native to the basin.

TubeDude -- do you know where that article was published, and when? It appears to have been written after Suckley published his work. H.C. Yarrow only did a portion of his homework...


[signature]

[TubeDude]

"TubeDude -- do you know where that article was published, and when? It appears to have been written after Suckley published his work. H.C. Yarrow only did a portion of his homework..."

[#0000FF]I had to look a bit, but I found this old Report to the Fishing Commissioners for 1872-3. The report by Yarrow is number XII at [url "http://penbay.org/cof/cof_1872_1873.html"]REPORT TO COMMISSION[/url]. There are a lot of other interesting goodies to read in that report.[/#0000FF]

[signature]

[doggonefishin]

[quote PBH]
Most early settlers and explorers were very good with identification and very specific with characteristics to identify plant and animal species. This article just has a couple mistakes, that most readers with some education can identify and understand the true identification: Bonneville cutthroat trout. [/quote]

Yes and no. Mr. Yarrow was a trained biologist ("naturalist" was the term often used at the time) who was part of the Wheeler survey. We would expect him to describe things fairly accurately, which he did. However, pioneers, explorers, and soldiers that describe fish and other wildlife in their journals were often far more inaccurate and the accounts have to be taken with that understanding. The example of the Hole in the Rock pioneers I noted fits into that category. It all still is interesting to read and decipher.


Mr. Yarrow and the Wheeler expedition weren't infallible either. I'd have to check when I get off work, but I believe they were the ones who first collected the Apache trout (of Arizona), but threw future fish biologists for a loop for years to come by mislabeling the collection jars as fish collected from Panguitch lake.
[signature]

[PBH]

[quote doggonefishin][quote PBH] Mr. Yarrow was a trained biologist ("naturalist" was the term often used at the time) who was part of the Wheeler survey. We would expect him to describe things fairly accurately, which he did. [/quote]

His paper posted by the Dude is very accurate and describes Bonneville cutthroat clearly. His sub-title includes Salmo virginalis -- again, a cutthroat. So the big question comes down to why he titled the report "On the Speckled trout of Utah Lake" and included that opening sentence? This obviously threw off a handful of people (including Tubedude) to assume that the rest of the article described a speckled or brook trout, which it very clearly did not. Maybe the report is simply stating what the local inhabitants of Utah referred to the cutthroat as: a "lake" trout (ie: a trout that lives in a lake), and then misinterpreted their meaning for a speckled trout?

Regardless of the title and opening sentence, the report very clearly describes cutthroat trout, as had previously been identified by other naturalists as Salmo virginalis.
[signature]

[doggonefishin]

[quote PBH] Maybe the report is simply stating what the local inhabitants of Utah referred to the cutthroat as: a "lake" trout (ie: a trout that lives in a lake), and then misinterpreted their meaning for a speckled trout?
[/quote]

Exactly, But I think the practice of describing any lacrustine trout as a "lake trout" or a stream dweller as a "brook trout" was more widespread than just here in Utah. It seemed that happened a lot in the old papers and survey results. Mr. Yarrow was certainly not implying that the UL's "lake trout" was Salvelinus namaycush.


[quote PBH]
Regardless of the title and opening sentence, the report very clearly describes cutthroat trout, as had previously been identified by other naturalists as Salmo virginalis.[/quote]

Absolutely.
[signature]

[pacscrumhalf]

This has been an excellent thread to read! Thanks to everyone for their input.

I think the Lahontan cutthroat is a great idea in principle if the lake could be cleaned up, dredged, etc. They seem to have the best chance of surviving Utah Lake's environment. But how would their status as a threatened species play into that option? If not the Lahontan cutthroat, aren't browns pretty hardy as well? Any other trout or salmonid species?

Thanks TD for bird dogging this topic!

Pacs
[signature]

[Anglinarcher]

TubDude, thanks for the articles and YouTube link.

pacscrumhalf, I doubt that Lahontan would ever be allowed in today's world, but if it were, it would likely come from Washington State where they previously transplanted it and it has become very prolific. Taking a threatened species from its native environment for transplant would be problematic, but taking it from a location where it "naturalized" would be acceptable.

You know, I see more intellectual conversation regarding this topic on this site then the entire legislature. Maybe we need to run some of or members for State Legislature. Just saying!!!!!

[TubeDude]

[quote pacscrumhalf]This has been an excellent thread to read! Thanks to everyone for their input.

I think the Lahontan cutthroat is a great idea in principle if the lake could be cleaned up, dredged, etc. They seem to have the best chance of surviving Utah Lake's environment. But how would their status as a threatened species play into that option? If not the Lahontan cutthroat, aren't browns pretty hardy as well? Any other trout or salmonid species?

Thanks TD for bird dogging this topic!

Pacs[/quote]

[#0000FF]There are probably quite a few more species that would survive and prosper in Utah Lake. But the big kicker is the June sucker. As long as it is on the endangered species list...and is under an aggressive and expensive restoration program...we are not likely to see approval for adding any more predators (sucker eaters) to the food chain.

For anyone not familiar with Lahontan cutts, they really are fish munchers. In Pyramid Lake (NV) they subsist almost entirely on "cui ui"...a small sucker...and tui chubs. Not a good endorsement for them being dumped into Utah Lake.

Personally, I would love to see some flathead cats in Utah Lake. But even the mere mention of something like that is enough to elicit screams of anguish from the Junie huggers. If you really wanna set them off start talking alligator gars.
[/#0000FF]
[signature]

[PBH]

[quote pacscrumhalf]
I think the Lahontan cutthroat is a great idea in principle if the lake could be cleaned up, dredged, etc.
...
how would their status as a threatened species play into that option? [/quote]


It's not the status of Lahontan that would matter. It would be the status of Bonneville cutthroat that matters. In today's world efforts are placed on restoring native fish to their native habitat in higher precedence than introducing non-native species. So, if a decision was made that cutthroat were to be reintroduced to Utah Lake, those cutthroat would be Bonneville.

There are historical records that discuss those cutthroat residing in Utah Lake. Even back in the 1800's, Utah Lake was relatively warm. During those summer months when lake temps increased those populations of cutthroat would migrate to mouths of stream inlets where cooler temps provided relief.

If there were a way to change irrigation and get more streams back to Utah Lake, including restoring the Provo River delta, then I think Oncorhynchus clarki utah could certainly make Utah Lake it's home again. Next to carp removal, irrigation issues would be a significant challenge.
[signature]

[pacscrumhalf]

That makes sense. It's a very interesting discussion. We'll see where the legislators take it. Going back to TD's thoughts on flatheads, they'd be great at culling the dink white bass I'd think. Flatts love a good panfish. Not so sure about the June sicker though.
[signature]

[PBH]

would adding channel cats really help?

One major issue with Utah Lake is the lack of aquatic vegetation. Sure, we have miles and miles of phrag on the shoreline, but nothing in the majority of the water body.

if you were to eliminate carp, aquatic vegetation would come back. With that aquatic vegetation, the existing largemouth bass population would most likely prosper, along with numerous other species.

the biggest "fix" for that lake is not an equation of "adding" more species. It's a habitat equation. One way to help fix the habitat is to remove carp. Another habitat "fix" would be to restore the Provo River delta, which in turn would benefit the June Sucker. Right now, with the Provo River inlet being a deep, slow "backwater", those June sucker fry become easy meals for the walleye, cats, etc. the move into that slow water to feed. Restore that back to a natural delta, and you restore the natural spawning habitat for those endangered fish. Again, this would benefit multiple species, including sport fish.
[signature]

[TubeDude]

[#0000FF]There is a lot of argument both for and against the Provo River Delta Plan. Junie huggers are all for it. But local farmers, home owners and business owners who would be impacted by it...not so much. And, unfortunately for suckerkind, most anglers who favor the warm water predator species in the lake don't much care for the idea of messing up their fishing for the sake of a "worthless sucker".

Here is the collection of past articles and web pages on the Provo River Plan for those who are not familiar with it.
[/#0000FF]
[signature]

[PBH]

[quote TubeDude][#0000ff]But local farmers, home owners and business owners who would be impacted by it...not so much. [/#0000ff][#0000ff][/quote]

[#000000]Of course not! When are famers and business owners ever excited to improve wildlife habitat??[/#000000]

[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][quote TubeDude]And, unfortunately for suckerkind, most anglers who favor the warm water predator species in the lake don't much care for the idea of messing up their fishing for the sake of a "worthless sucker".

[/#0000ff][/quote]

This ^^^ is crazy talk.
Improving habitat would only improve things for those "warm water" predator species.
The only thing that might impact those "anglers" (term used loosely) is that they wouldn't be able to plunk in that deep, slow, back-water currently called the provo river inlet. So they might have to find a new spot to catch walleye -- is that really a valid argument against habitat improvement??
[signature]

[TubeDude]

"is that really a valid argument against habitat improvement??"

[#0000FF]Hard core angler types are usually more concerned with convenience and harvest rather than habitat improvement. Short term vs long term every time.

A bird in the hand...makes blowing your nose difficult.
[/#0000FF]
[signature]