Tiger Trout

[pookiebar]

perch would cause the same problem as tiger Muskie, once they wash down into the stream below the us fish and game management would make the dwr kill everything off.
[signature]

[Gemcityslayer]

I'm sure they couldn't fix the problem with tigers... Tigers are tough to make in the first place, not like you can ramp up production on them much at all.

It's too bad they can't put eyes in there due to the downstream concerns... That is probably the only way to get rid of them (like Starvation as you suggested earlier).

Just gotta deal with the chubs (poison and then put up with them coming back to some degree). The big fish will be back eventually.
[signature]

[pookiebar]

I agree with most of what you said except that chubs will be "re introduced" the chubs will never fully be killed off. From cold water our dwr contact "And just so everyone knows, even a rotenone treatment will not completely eradicate Utah cubs from Scofield. "

So with that being said the chubs will come back in force. I wonder about allowing someone to net them through the ice, like the carp project on UL?
[signature]

[doggonefishin]

RE"They did basically the same study at Strawberry before the rotenone treatment there. They were trying to determine if they could plant enough Bear Lake Cutthroat in there to reduce the chubs to a manageable level. They couldn't. I'd wager that they can't plant enough Tiger Trout and Bear Lake Cutthroat Trout in Scofield to reduce the numbers of Utah Chubs to a manageable level."


Just to refresh everyones memory, the DWR had the right idea about Strawberry, but the wrong initial regulation. Remember when it reopened after the poisoning, they had a regulation where you could harvest cutts, but they asked people to voluntarily release the cutts? That was an epic failure and people with no self control harvested the cutts by the bucketful. The chubs weren't controlled for a number of years until the slot was instituted, and by then, you had big, mature chubs that are too big to be routinely eaten by fish and live 25 years. Once the slot was put in, the small chubs are well controlled at Strawberry and the fishery is in good shape, but the big, old chubs will be there for a long time to come.


My opinion FWIW (not much), is if you treated Scofield AND started there with a slot limit for tigers and BL cutts from the beginning, after treatment, it would keep the fishing good for a long time and the chubs wouldn't necessarily win. You just can't go back to general regs and harvest out all the trout predators or the chubs will quickly return, get big, and become entrenched. Also, Scofield is a shallow lake compared to the Berry and you probably would get a better kill than what they got at Strawberry.
[signature]

[pookiebar]

what about lahontan cut throat? seems they grow big and fast, could they control the chub numbers?
[signature]

[TubeDude]

[#0000FF][cool]I'm witchoo. Can't have it both ways...lots of fish and big fish too. If the chubs are eliminated...along with all the current crop of big fish...there will be far fewer big fish in the future. What do people think the truly BIG fish are eating? Zooplankton? Not. They eat meat...as in chubs...lots of chubs. Virtually every big tiger trout (and cutt) taken from Scofield has a belly full of chubkind.

Eliminating chubs will make more micro trout chow available but after the trout reach the upper teen incher size they will slow down in growth and will die before becoming 2 footers.

And, on another note, walleyes might not be good candidates for Scofield but keep yer eyes open for the possibility of sterile saugeyes being introduced in chub-laden waters in the future. I heerd tell...
[/#0000FF]
[signature]

[Gemcityslayer]

I know a guy who fishes Lake Pyramid regularly. This year, he has caught 2 Lahontan Cutties over 20lbs.[][sly]
[signature]

[Gemcityslayer]

[quote TubeDude][#0000ff][cool]I'm witchoo. Can't have it both ways...lots of fish and big fish too. If the chubs are eliminated...along with all the current crop of big fish...there will be far fewer big fish in the future. What do people think the truly BIG fish are eating? Zooplankton? Not. They eat meat...as in chubs...lots of chubs. Virtually every big tiger trout (and cutt) taken from Scofield has a belly full of chubkind.

Eliminating chubs will make more micro trout chow available but after the trout reach the upper teen incher size they will slow down in growth and will die before becoming 2 footers.

And, on another note, walleyes might not be good candidates for Scofield but keep yer eyes open for the possibility of sterile saugeyes being introduced in chub-laden waters in the future. I heerd tell...
[/#0000ff][/quote]

Well said! I just recently started targeting Tigers this past year...and they have quickly become one of my favorite (if not my favorite) species to fish for. These fish are vacuum cleaners, they slurp and suck up everything and anything that swims.

There could be hundreds (probably much more) of 10-15lb Tigers in that lake... and those fish have a bodacious appetite. I was fishing a tiger lake this fall (I won't mention the name, but feel free to guess[laugh]) and I caught a 14-15" cutthroat that had it's tail fin completely digested, and big teeth scrapes and marks showing what happened. I was like WOW!

And again, this fall, I caught a 25" Tiger with a 10-12" sucker stuffed in her throat... and she still hit my 5-6" bait. Now that is an impressive species! It would be very interesting to see a study done on just how much mass (other fish) these big 15-20lb tigers eat. They definitely have that brown trout gene in em.

[Fishrmn]

You can trap or net chubs any time you want. But you gotta abide by the restrictions already in place.

To take nonprohibited nongame fish, you may use angling, traps, archery (excluding crossbows), dipnets, cast nets, liftnets, seines or a handheld spear from above the surface of the water. When using these methods, please remember the following rules:
• Seines (nets) may not exceed 10 feet in length or width.
• Cast nets may not exceed 10 feet in diameter (a five-foot radius).
• Nongame fish that are legal to take must either be released or killed immediately after you remove them from the water. You may not leave them on the shoreline.

[signature]

[MasterDaad]

All that and Tigers fight like no other too.

From a sport fishing perspective, I'd much rather catch Tigers than Cutts.

From a consuming perspective, Tigers are my least favorite trout species. But I figure that's what Rainbows are for anyway.

Tigers are for C&R.

For those who think a lake treatment will have no effect on the trophy quality of Scofield: I'd like to know if that's the case, how do you explain Scofield not being a trophy lake until the current "unhealthy" state.

I fished Scofield in the late 90's (nearly 10 years after the last treatment). It was Strawberry-lite.

It's only since the Chub have become plentifully problematic that the large fish have become monstrous.
[signature]

[Fishrmn]

[quote TubeDude][#0000FF]Eliminating chubs will make more micro trout chow available but after the trout reach the upper teen incher size they will slow down in growth and will die before becoming 2 footers.
[/#0000FF][/quote]

What do the big fish in Henry's Lake, in Idaho eat?
[signature]

[Gemcityslayer]

I'm sure the big boys eat small trout way more often than people want to believe.
[signature]

[wiper_junkie]

[signature]

[MasterDaad]

My understanding of Henry's the trout get big (and fat) quickly because:

They feed on a lot of the forage fish that thrive in the clear, shallow water vegetation that is unique to that Lake -- making it is one of the best trout fisheries anywhere.

The growth rates at Henry's are very impressive.

Scofield lacks the uncommonly rich base vegetation of Henry's.
[signature]

[wiper_junkie]

[quote pookiebar]Would they consider putting tiger Muskie in there? I mean those fish would eat chubs real early on right. A couple thousand of them and you would eliminate a lot of chubs and some of those skinny twerp trout that are in there right now.[/quote]

I've suggested this approach before too. It seems to have worked out quite well at Joes Valley from what I've heard. We had a DNR guy there last year tell us that the muskies were "doing a number on the chubs". If the muskies start to become a problem, or they get the chubs under control and are no longer wanted, just lift the restrictions, and don't plant them, and they'll be all but gone in a few years.

Whatever the DNR's ends up doing, I am gald to see that poisioning is the last resort. Scofield has got some serious potential as a trophy tiger trout lake, and I'd hate to see that disappear. Fred K.

As for Lost Creek...... don't let that place fool you! There are some real quality fish in there. I think that the main reason that the tiger trout have not done to well in there is because they were very small (2") when they were stocked and most did not survive. I suggested to the DNR guy who told me this that maybe they should stock lesser numbers of larger fish in order to up the survival rate, and he said that that was an option.

In the mean time, a few pics for you.....

pic 1) 24" 4 1/2lb Scofield tiger

pic 2) 22.5" Lost Creek cutt

Both released. Fred K.
[signature]

[flygoddess]

Actually, Henry's is more about bugs than fish. They get big on the bugs and a controlled fishery which is having problems its self these days. A lot of large chub on the gill netting and smaller fish. Brookies love them fishies however. The Cutts are eating chub, but more because it is survival of the fittest. Too many fish. The fact the numbers in chub is getting larger in Henry's is because the Cutts are not known for eating them. Which is not to say they won't.
[signature]

[doggonefishin]

A couple of points

1. RE" From a consuming perspective, I figure that's what Rainbows are for anyway. "
and
"I fished Scofield in the late 90's (nearly 10 years after the last treatment). It was Strawberry-lite. "

That is the dilemma with Scofield. Yes, there are some huge tigers and a few good cutts, but the rainbow fishing still is poor. This is important because the "old" Scofield produced very nice rainbows that many people went up there to take home. A lot of folks miss that. I would bet that the overall usage is down because the rainbow/catch and keep fishery is still bad. That will be the problem the trophy crowd will have going forward. Trophy fisheries are popular with a small segment of die hard anglers (me included) but are not as popular with the masses. Just go to a DWR open house and listen to people whine about the slot limits at Scofield and Strawberry and you will see. In the case with Scofield, the DWR has to weigh trading in the old Scofield, (once one of the best rainbow fisheries in the state) for a new trophy tiger fishery that will benefit fewer anglers, but occasionally will yield spectacular individual results.

2. RE" For those who think a lake treatment will have no effect on the trophy quality of Scofield: I'd like to know if that's the case, how do you explain Scofield not being a trophy lake until the current "unhealthy" state. "

I don't think anyone is arguing there will be "no effect". There obviously will be. The question is rather whether people would prefer to catch 1 6lb tiger trout in a day of fishing or 6-7 3 lb fat rainbows in a day. I think each person will answer that question differently, and there isn't a definitive answer that fits everyone.

3. RE"From a consuming perspective, Tigers are my least favorite trout species."

Try Huntington. The tigers there are as red meated and yummy as you'll find.
[signature]

[gstott]

I agree on the tasty tigers in Huntington. That is the only place I've eaten them from and they were fantastic. Bright orange flesh and more like salmon than most of the trout that I've eaten.
[signature]

[Gemcityslayer]

How many places in Utah can you go and catch eating / family fishing rainbows though? There are dozens, and dozens of places to go...

How many places in Utah produce 18lb Tiger Trout? If the record tiger was one of the first fish planted in 05... it went from what 8"-10" or less? To over 18lbs in just 8 years. Where in Utah, or anywhere for that matter, do trout put on that kind of mass that quickly? It is simply astonishing growth rate and you will be hard pressed to see it anywhere.

It seems to me like spending over a million bucks, only to erase such a special fishery in hopes of it turning into something better...is a gamble. A big one at that.

My fear is that the Utah DWR will find (along with Utah State) that the chubs are not being controlled effectively and therefor something needs to be done to rid them. I don't think the decision should be made on that basis, because we all know it is extremely unlikely they get control of the chubs. Make the decision looking at all factors, not just on whether or not you can control the chubs. As has been stated, even after killing all the trophy Tigers and most of the chubs... there is still a good chance the chubs will come back - and in strong numbers. So is it really worth spending that kind of money in these hard economic times...in "hopes" of turning it into something better?

It is a world class fishery for a incredible species... I could see if Utah had 3-4 other lakes producing 18lb Tigers...what's the big deal if you change one of them into a different kind of fishery?

The chub "problem" is only a problem if you look at it that way. Anglers travel all over the country chasing trophy fish at Lake Pyramid, Lake Henry, just to name a few... once word gets out that there are 20lb Tigers swimming in there I am sure over time fishing enthusiasm and #'s will go up. Mark my word!

If you want to catch a bunch of 20" fish, go fish Strawberry or any of the other dozen rivers and lakes in Utah...(or Colorado, Utah, Idaho, etc... Don't ruin a world class fishery! The tigers are reaching world record size BECAUSE of the chubs, not in spite of them!

And by the way: I don't want to sound cocky, but these big tigers are not all that difficult to catch... As has been mentioned, these fish eat a lot...(and big too) You want to know what I think? I bet 95-98% of anglers fishing there, are fishing with the wrong tackle. You aren't going to catch very many giant tigers on small spoons, small rapalas, worms on the bottom, panther martins, etc. These fish will eat 10-12" trout and gobble up all the chubs they can fit in their stomach... give them a steak to eat and they will eat it. I catch all my big tigers on 5+" baits (lures / plastics). (and you'd be surprised how many of them under 20" will also attack big offerings. I think a lot of people think these fish are tough to catch...and it's a rare opportunity to get one... I just don't think that is the case, unless you are using really small baits. Maybe if more people understood that, they would enjoy fishing there more.

How many people do you see there throwing 7-8" streamers or bigger baits? My guess is VERY few. Funny, if you show up and plunk worms and throw panther martins, all you are going to catch is smaller trout... which might lead you to believe the lake sucks. Most anglers think a 4-5" bait is huge... when I'm chasing big tigers, that is the smallest baits I'll even consider using.[]
[signature]

[cuthroat_guy]

YEAH!!!


And I would rather go catch perch , than fish the berry for slot cutts!
[signature]