Scofield DWR Netting

[k2muskie]

I know some of you don’t do the EVIL Facebook. So sharing...

“Our fisheries team visited Scofield Reservoir to do some gill netting last week. They were excited to catch both tiger muskies and wipers in their nets. These predatory fish were planted in the reservoir back in 2017 to help reduce the number of chubs. The largest wiper caught was 21.85 inches and weighed over 6 pounds! The largest tiger muskie was 30 inches and had a 10-inch chub in its stomach.”

My prediction is Scofield will become a great fishery and I'm very optimistic that folks who were negative Nancie's on the stocking of both these species will be pleasantly surprised. Guess we'll see...way better than spending hundred of thousands of dollars killing it off with rotenone every 10 years and starting over to end up with the same results meaning chub problems.

But that’s my .02
[signature]

[doitall5000]

Sounds like those nasty chubs are in trouble.
I'm hoping its not going to be, like other body's of water, a lake for everything that breaths water.

Thanks for passing it on, I don't want to risk the Facebook infection.
[signature]

[cje04]

Thank you for the info!
[signature]

[gofish435]

Thanks for the update and your .02 worth.[]

Here is a photo of the wiper that was netted, keep in mind it was stocked as a 7 1/2" fish in 2017. It's hard to tell that the fish has a head.[]
[signature]

[a_bow_nut]

That would be fun to tie into.

Does anyone know if there are still a pile of chubs below the dam so I can stock up on bait for the winter?
[signature]

[dubob]

[quote k2muskie]I know some of you don’t do the EVIL Facebook. So sharing...[/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]That would be me Kim; I don't 'DO' fb. [][/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]
[/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]While I have never fished that water and have no plans to do so in the future, it is heartening to know that the DWR guys & gals do actually know something about fisheries management contrary to what the bucket biologists post on here. Thanks for sharing that good news about the successful (so far) introduction of those two species of predictors. Sounds like the chubs just may be in trouble up there.[/size][/#800000][/font]
[signature]

[wormandbobber]

Or, they could have poisoned it 10 years ago, restocked it with wipers and tiger musky and we would already have a great fishery instead of hoping to have one in the future...

...I don't know about you, but I do know what I would have wanted.
[signature]

[PBH]

[quote k2muskie] I'm very optimistic that folks who were negative Nancie's on the stocking of both these species will be pleasantly surprised. Guess we'll see...way better than spending hundred of thousands of dollars killing it off with rotenone every 10 years and starting over to end up with the same results meaning chub problems.

But that’s my .02[/quote]


Wait a minute...I don't recall ANYONE being against the stocking of wipers and tiger musky. In fact, I think everyone is in favor of those species. I know I was, and still am.

My concerns were simply:

A. will wipers work? Wipers had previously never been tried in a lake at elevations as high as Scofield. Only time will tell if they work. I, for one, am optimistic that they will work.

B. Time. Again, as has been pointed out numerous times: Why wait?? Why did we wait? Why are we still waiting? Why do we not have a wonderful fishery right now? We could have had the same (better?) result by simply poisoning the fishery once (fall), immediately restock with wipers and tm (late fall) and be sitting right here having the same conversation about 20+" wipers in the nets 1 year later! AND THAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE 5 (10?) YEARS AGO!


Instead, we are still being overly optimistic about Scofield being a great fishery IN THE FUTURE. I think it will, as most of you do as well. I just wish it already was.
[signature]

[doggonefishin]

So, uh, how were the trout in the gillnet study?



Hey, I'm glad that some fat wipers are showing up. []
[signature]

[Justaguywaworm]

I hope the DWR - Keeps planting Wipers, Big Rainbows and anything else. But Please no more small Cuts - They just haven't gotten very big the last 5 years.

I am curious about the netting survey if they did pull up any good sized Cut Throats or Tiger Trout. They used to be real big down there.
[signature]

[scartinez]

Probably because poisoning it and restocking it would cost lots of money. Seems like a reasonable answer.
[signature]

[PBH]

[quote scartinez]Probably because poisoning it... would cost lots of money. Seems like a reasonable answer.[/quote]

But at what cost?
How much money has the state lost by having an underutilized fishery for the last 20 years??


You have to look at both sides of the equation. Sure there is a monetary cost associated with poisoning a fishery. But there is also a monetary cost associated with a fishery that anglers avoid due to poor quality fishing. Where is the break-even point? How much has we lost because we took the 20+ year "let's take the slow approach"?

[quote scartinez]...and restocking it...[/quote]'

It's being re-stocked whether rotenone is being used or not. In fact, the costs of stocking over the past 20 years were probably higher than the cost of using rotenone to poison. Had a poisoning occurred, the stocking costs may have, in fact, come down. If restocking is part of your argument, your books are in the red and rotenone should have been used!
[signature]

[_6x_]

Great news! It's almost selfish to think we could have another success story in the region the way Strawberry has been, but that's very encouraging. Thanks to everybody working on managing the resources.
[signature]

[dubob]

[quote PBH]But there is also a monetary cost associated with a fishery that anglers avoid due to poor quality fishing.[/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]For some reason, I can't think of a single cost associated with avoiding fishing at Scofield. Please tell me what those costs are. I'm being serious; I can't think of a single cost. Who would bear that cost?[/size][/#800000][/font]
[signature]

[pastadler]

In discussions with the 2 different DWR managers about Scofield Reservoir, I I was very surprised at the estimated cost. A rotenone treatment on a lake with that volume of water would cost north of $1 million. I thought the first guy I talked to you was just feeding me a line, but the next guy I talked to a month later gave me a more specific number of around $1.2-1.3 million!

While it would be great to see that fishery perform now instead of later, that price tag is a little painful, and would certainly limit some of the DWR's ability to perform other stocking projects in different bodies of water.
[signature]

[JandSGuns]

I grew up fishing for trout at Strawberry and Scofield. 99.8% of my fishing was done at those 2 lakes. One could always catch fish. If memory serves me correctly, both lakes were poisoned the same year, 1990. DWR had a plan for Strawberry and it has been managed ever since. Scofield was poisoned and then restocked with trout and left alone. For the next 20 years it was a great fishery! I always took my kids up there as we always caught fish (trout) and had fun. I am not interested in catching wipers, muskies, chubs or small cuts and tigers that have to be thrown back. I gave up fishing Scofield. I always hope that someday that will be a great trout fishery again.
[signature]

[Fishrmn]

☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️☝️

[quote dubob][quote PBH]But there is also a monetary cost associated with a fishery that anglers avoid due to poor quality fishing.[/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]For some reason, I can't think of a single cost associated with avoiding fishing at Scofield. Please tell me what those costs are. I'm being serious; I can't think of a single cost. Who would bear that cost?[/size][/#800000][/font][/quote]


The cost is that we've had (pretty much still have) a Utah State Park that is a ghost town. There was a time when the saying floated around that you could walk across Scofield from boat to boat. Nobody pays to launch boats or stay in the campgrounds. They still pay to maintain it and staff it, but why? There has been a whole lot of economic opportunity for Carbon County that has been squandered. When people don't go fishing, they don't buy licenses. That's a loss for the DWR.

As JandSGuns said;
I am not interested in catching wipers, muskies, chubs or small cuts and tigers that have to be thrown back. I gave up fishing Scofield. I always hope that someday that will be a great trout fishery again.

I think there a lot of folks who feel the same way. I've talked to a lot of folks who feel the exact same way, but most of them don't jump on BFT and shout praises for perch or walleye, or bass, or muskies.



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

[dubob]

[quote Fishrmn]The cost is that we've had (pretty much still have) a Utah State Park that is a ghost town.

[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]Since I have only been there once in the late 1970's, I have no first hand knowledge on that. I just got off the phone with the Scofield Park office. I asked what the occupancy rate is during the summer months there. The answer: near or at full occupancy all summer long. Based on that intel, I would have to ask what data you based your assertion that it is a 'ghost town.'[/size][/#800000][/font]

There was a time when the saying floated around that you could walk across Scofield from boat to boat. Nobody pays to launch boats or stay in the campgrounds. [font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]I didn't ask about day use (one day boat launch), but the campground stays full most of the time according to park staff information.[/size][/#800000][/font]

They still pay to maintain it and staff it, but why? [font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3] If for nothing else, to keep the campers happy.[/size][/#800000][/font]

There has been a whole lot of economic opportunity for Carbon County that has been squandered. [font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]??? What economic opportunity would that be? The ONLY town that would be impacted by Scofield Reservoir would be the town of Scofield that had a declining total, year round population of 23 according to the 2010 Census. That decline has been slowed every so slightly be a few [/size][/#800000][/font][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]outsiders constructing summer vacation homes in the area. Can't say that the economic impact of that, one way or the other, is meaningful in the slightest.[/size][/#800000][/font]

When people don't go fishing, they don't buy licenses. That's a loss for the DWR. [font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]I doubt seriously that the loss of fishing opportunities at one single fishing lake will have ANY measurable impact on the total number of fishing licenses sold. And we are talking about just one fishing lake - Scofield. People that fish will just fish elsewhere. They will NOT stop fishing just because a lake they fished has turned sour.[/size][/#800000][/font]

As JandSGuns said;
I am not interested in catching wipers, muskies, chubs or small cuts and tigers that have to be thrown back. I gave up fishing Scofield. I always hope that someday that will be a great trout fishery again. [font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3] I have to ask - what, in your mind, constitutes a 'great trout fishery'? Is it catching a limit on every visit; is it catching fish bigger than this years planters; what is it? I can catch a limit of 15" to 18" trout in 4 hours or less in at least 6 lakes within 1 hours drive from my home in Weber County. So what am I missing?[/size][/#800000][/font]

I think there a lot of folks who feel the same way. I've talked to a lot of folks who feel the exact same way, but most of them don't jump on BFT and shout praises for perch or walleye, or bass, or muskies.



[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{[/green][size 4][green]⦇[/green][/size][blue]°>[/blue][/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]Sorry, but I'm still not convinced there is a measurable/significant monetary cost (loss of revenue) to the state or it's citizens associated with anglers avoiding fishing at Scofield. But I can change my mind if shown some actual data that supports the contention. []
[/size][/#800000][/font]
[signature]

[wiperhunter2]

LOL, leave it up to Bob to come up with the real facts, not BS. I think a lot of folks just believe what they want to believe, damm the facts. I had a feeling what the naysayers said was not based on facts. I want to thank you so much for reaching out to the Parks folks there and separating the fact from fiction. You are the man Bob.
There are so many lakes around the Price area and the Spanish fork area, or anywhere in Utah for that matter, that I had a hard time believing what was said about people not buying license, just because one lake wasn't fishing as good as it once did. Folks that fish and like to fish would just go to another location, they would not stop buying license because of one lake.
The good news from this post is that the fish that were put in place to catch the chubs are doing their job and the trout catching will continue to improve without spending over a million dollars to accomplish that goal. So what if it takes time, it isn't like they can get a do over at this point and the DWR has learned that wipers and TM can survive at that higher elevation and do the job they were put in there to do. So what if a few folks don't want to catch a wiper or a TM, I guarantee if they latch on to one, they would say it did not give them a great fight[].
[signature]

[Fowl-Hook]

When you differ from FIshrmn's opinion it's unfair to actually use facts!
Well done Bob.
[signature]