Posts: 15,520
Threads: 1,314
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
12
Fished Scofield yesterday with a high school buddy. We caught fish everywhere we fished (all caught vertically jigging or casting jigs and bouncing them back to the boat). We only caught slender cutthroat from around 7" to about 15" long and fourteen large and fat chubs (could have caught a much larger number if we would have targeted them).
Scofield is a far cry from the fishery that I enjoyed as a youngster.
I have been exchanging emails with Justin Hart (UDWR Regional Aquatic Program Manager) and he is hopeful that they experience the same success at Scofield Reservoir, using tiger musky, that they have experienced at Joes Valley Reservoir. According to Justin, the tiger musky have gotten the chubs under control at Joes Valley Reservoir.
I am hopeful that the management plan works sooner rather than later; however, if I would have been king for a day I would have rotenone Scofield many years ago. I would then have replanted it with rainbows, cutthroats, and tiger trout (and any other sterile predators that one wants to put in would be fine) and institute the same slot limit as currently exists.
[signature]
Posts: 14,302
Threads: 181
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
15
I understand the desire for a quick fix, but I still like the balance thing that comes along with adding predators to a point where they keep the feed supply in check... I think we need to give them a chance, I'm getting to think these guys know what they are doing pretty well as I grow older and start to see things on more of a long term type view... Of course it's not my favorite pond so it's easy for me to say since I'm not effected by the waiting time but from what I've seen in areas I'm familiar with, I like it when they get things in a natural balance, it makes for good sized nice looking fish... Just my take on things... Later J
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
Joe's Valley has worked, not because of Tiger Muskies, but in spite of them. Slot limits, Splake, water, depth, and lack of fishing pressure, along with 10 years of waiting, has produced a fishery that almost no one utilizes. There's some nice fish, but hard to justify a trip there unless you live nearby.
I wish you would've been king for a day too. Scofield is going to be MOTSS for many years to come. More of the same stuff. Slender cutthroats, Nonexistent Wipers, few if any Tiger Trout, and the occasional Tiger Musky. And Utah Chubs galore. The only reason people aren't catching them is because they are using tactics that don't catch many chubs. They're still too much of the biomass of the reservoir to be controlled.
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{[/green][size 4][green]⦇[/green][/size][blue]°>[/blue]
[signature]
Posts: 15,520
Threads: 1,314
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
12
Hopefully, they can also secure some sterile walleye to stock to gulp up some of the chubs.
[signature]
Posts: 15,520
Threads: 1,314
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
12
You're singing to the choir.
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
[quote SkunkedAgain]I like it when they get things in a natural balance, it makes for good sized nice looking fish... Just my take on things... Later J[/quote]
Sure, Willard Bay is in perfect balance. Does anybody have the Wipers figured out this year? Are the Walleyes showing up? How about the Channel Catfish? Are they big enough for ya?
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{[/green][size 4][green]⦇[/green][/size][blue]°>[/blue]
[signature]
Posts: 15,520
Threads: 1,314
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
12
[quote Fishrmn]
Joe's Valley has worked, not because of Tiger Muskies, but in spite of them.
[/quote]
Huh? Please explain.
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
They're there, but they don't do much to control the chubs. They provide a trophy fishery, just like in Pineview. And just like in Pineview they eat a few fish and sit around most of the time. Yes, they do consume a few prey species. No, they do not eat so much that they reduce the prey species. That has been proven at Pineview.
BTW, has anyone caught, seen, or even heard of a Wiper being caught at Scofield? Were there any in the gill nets back in May?
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{[/green][size 4][green]⦇[/green][/size][blue]°>[/blue]
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
[quote kentofnsl]Hopefully, they can also secure some sterile walleye to stock to gulp up some of the chubs.[/quote]
Personally, I'd rather they didn't. Do we really need another underutilized Walleye fishery? I mean, everybody headed to Echo is now fishing for Walleyes, right? And the number one draw at Willard Bay is Walleyes, correct? And everybody goes to Deer Creek just to catch Walleyes, right? And nobody bothers with anything but Walleyes when they go to Starvation, do they? And the Walleyes are the number one reason people fish at Lake Powell, no?
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{[/green][size 4][green]⦇[/green][/size][blue]°>[/blue]
[signature]
Posts: 656
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
0
You may disagree here, but I don't think you can really judge a lake on one outing.
I never do very well for bigger trout in July and August, I think it is the worst time to fish for them. Might just be the tactics I use though.
In any case, catching any trout at all would seem to be an improvement at this lake. There were many reports for a sustained time in the past where people said no trout were caught at all.
Last I saw of the netting there the tiger muskies had grown pretty fast which is a good sign in my opinion because they'll have the most competition for food when they are small. Once they start getting bigger, they are going to do a nice job of cleaning up on chubs and unhealthy trout.
[signature]
Posts: 656
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
0
Just because they aren't at the top of every person's list of fish they want to catch at a given lake doesn't mean they wouldn't help the fishery in some role. From what I've seen the management style here lately has been, throw whatever you can at the wall and see if it sticks. Adding some sterile walleye wouldn't go against the grain of the things they have tried and are trying. Would it?
Whether or not they would be effective here is up for debate but it shouldn't be based on whether or not if they are stocked they'll become the most targeted fish at the lake. In general, diversity if it can be achieved is good in my opinion.
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
People were catching shoe string cutts before. If you avoided using worms, you avoided catching chubs. Kent said he could've caught a lot more chubs. If you're catching chubs on jigs, there's still a lot of chubs.
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{[/green][size 4][green]⦇[/green][/size][blue]°>[/blue]
[signature]
Posts: 656
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
0
I've said it countless times before and I'll say it again: I still think it holds true.
Many biologists, in many states, covering many different types of waters would love to have the problem of "too many chubs". It is only a problem if you are a pessimist and see it as one.
Too many chubs can be a blessing if you take steps to take advantage of them. "Too many chubs" can result in world class fishing that produces world class trophy fish. You don't want every lake in your region to be like this, but having a few lakes that have true trophy potential is awesome. How many lakes in Utah have "too many chubs"? Dozens? I would think not. Why not take advantage of the situation. The people who want to go catch lots of numbers of healthy fish have plenty of options in Utah. How many lakes in Utah in the last 30 years have produced world class fish? And Scofield absoutely has the potential to do it, some of the tiger trout that have grown up in there are truly world class fish. Embrace it.
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
The world class Tiger Trout were produced while the UDWR were planting several hundred thousand fingerling rainbows every year. When that stopped, the big Tigers disappeared. The Walleye in Starvation were spawning, and therefore putting many, many times more offspring than the UDWR will be able to provide, and it took nearly 30 years to control the chubs.
Let the biologists in other states have the chubs.
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{[/green][size 4][green]⦇[/green][/size][blue]°>[/blue]
[signature]
Posts: 15,520
Threads: 1,314
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
12
[quote Fishrmn]
BTW, has anyone caught, seen, or even heard of a Wiper being caught at Scofield? Were there any in the gill nets back in May?
[/quote]
None showed up in the gill nets in May. Per Justin Hart, "However, we put them into Huntington North for 3 years before we found them in our nets, so maybe we aren't too surprised we haven't seen them at Scofield yet. This was the one species we had concerns with regarding overwinter survival, there are not many wiper fisheries, or maybe any, at this elevation."
[signature]
Posts: 15,520
Threads: 1,314
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
12
[quote Fishrmn][quote kentofnsl]Hopefully, they can also secure some sterile walleye to stock to gulp up some of the chubs.[/quote]
Personally, I'd rather they didn't. Do we really need another underutilized Walleye fishery? I mean, everybody headed to Echo is now fishing for Walleyes, right? And the number one draw at Willard Bay is Walleyes, correct? And everybody goes to Deer Creek just to catch Walleyes, right? And nobody bothers with anything but Walleyes when they go to Starvation, do they? And the Walleyes are the number one reason people fish at Lake Powell, no?
[/quote]
I know several anglers who go to Deer Creek, Starvation and Willard Bay to primarily target walleye. Just because walleye may not be the primary target fish in Scofield is no reason to not plant sterile walleye. They would help put a dent in the chubs and any assistance in getting their numbers lowered is a blessing.
[signature]
Posts: 643
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2003
Reputation:
0
They do reduce chub populations. Like Kent said, look at joes valley. This lake (which was a historically great family trout fishery in the past) was completely over run with chubs 20 years ago. The DWR put splake in there then to try to control them with little success. Problem was the splake run deep but the chubs would hang in the shallows. Poison isn't really an option at JV due to the deep water. That's when they put in tiger muskie. And now after about 8-10 years chub populations have been sliced in half. But more than that there is a growing population of very nice Splake, and large cuthroat. Even though very few trout have been stocked in years. Not to mention the massive tiger muskies being caught now.
Keep in mind Joes valley was never a trophy fishery before, A 15" rainbow was a large fish. But now it is very much a trophy size water not only for tigers , but for some trout also. And it seems to be improving every year.
Scofield has the potential to become a trophy water. The future is unknown. The only thing we know for sure is that poisoning has never worked. The 3 times since 1970 has only produced 5-7 years of good fishing each time , then the chubs take over I for one am glad they are trying something else, and it seems to be working already . The cutthroats I have caught this year were all healthy 12-14" fatty's. Unlike the 8-12" skinny snakes of the last couple years.
They only went to this management plan 2 years ago (TM , wipers, tiger trout were stocked again recently) Give it 4,5,or 6 years and see what happens. Then complaints may carry more weight if it has not improved.
[signature]
Posts: 3,084
Threads: 21
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
12
[quote Gemcityslayer]
Many biologists, in many states, covering many different types of waters would love to have the problem of "too many chubs". It is only a problem if you are a pessimist and see it as one. [/quote]
Quote one. Just one. From a verified source. I want to see it.
I do not believe that statement for 1 second.
[signature]
Posts: 3,084
Threads: 21
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
12
[quote Lonnie] The only thing we know for sure is that poisoning has never worked. [/quote]
I get so tired of this comment. It is wrong. It did work. Every time they did it, it worked. What you all fail to recognize is the goal of the poisoning. Was that goal a 100% kill with no return of chubs? Or, was it [rotenone treatment] simply a part of a long-term management plan?
[quote Lonnie]
The 3 times since 1970 has only produced 5-7 years of good fishing each time , then the chubs take over .[/quote]
Success!
So, if the management plan included a rotenone treatment every 8 years, then you can easily come to the conclusion that rotenone was successful!
Fast forward to today: the opportunity to poison Scofield fully expecting less than 100%chub kill followed by stocking of wipers, tiger musky, tiger trout, cutthroat, sterile walleye, etc. was a valid option that would have produced faster results. In stead, we are still here talking about 12" trout, and potential big tiger musky in the future.
[signature]
Posts: 2,504
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
[quote PBH]
I get so tired of this comment. It is wrong. It did work. Every time they did it, it worked. What you all fail to recognize is the goal of the poisoning. Was that goal a 100% kill with no return of chubs? Or, was it the goal simply a part of a management plan?
[/quote]
I agree. The other angle to this argument is that Scofield was previously treated and just put back on general regs. What also has worked every time is to treat and immediately put in the predators plus a slot limit. That has worked every time. Worked at Strawberry, worked at Panguitch. It would work at Scofield.
[signature]
|
