Scofield survey results

[AmyC]

Thanks again to everyone who participated in our recent survey about fishing at Scofield Reservoir. For those who are interested, here are the results: http://go.usa.gov/x8T4h

Amy
[signature]

[doggonefishin]

From the survey results:

Favor or strongly favor rotenone: 53.14%

Neutral: 19.20%

Oppose or strongly oppose rotenone: 27.66%



I don't think even the electoral college could alter the results of that vote. []
[signature]

[MasterDaad]

Thanks for posting the survey.

It's clear the public wants changes at Scofield -- and as a former avid Scofield fisherman I agree.

Note: the fish in my Avatar is from almost exactly 3 years ago at Scofield.

For those who don't read the survey, the public clearly favored MANY possible actions including stocking of walleye and wiper to address the chub overpopulation.

The clear mandate was for change -- not simply for poisoning.
[signature]

[El_Matador]

Interesting to read the results, thank you for posting. Its really too bad the F&G is so obsessed with preserving "native species". Stock Scofield with Lahontan cutts and you'd have something really special...but since these fish originate from a few hundred miles away they won't ever be considered.

The old strategy of planting cutts and tigers worked pretty well until they increased the limit to 8 fish. Keeping the limit at 1 fish over 24" on cutts and tigers would be a good way to go.
[signature]

[Fishrmn]

Well there ya go. They weren't planting Tigers and Bear Lake cutts when they went to the 8 fish limit. The current "plan" came about after the 8 fish limit had already decimated the trout population. The big Tigers were a one time thing. When they planted the first batch they grew big. After that, the forage base isn't the same, and they quit growing to the 18 lb. size.

Please! Don't let them put Wipers and/or sterile Walleyes in Scofield.



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

[Highmth]

I would support killing it and starting over. The only problem is the chubs would eventually return. I found a bunch of chubs 5 miles above Schofield in fish creek this summer so they will make their way back after it is treated. I don't like to see the resource being wasted like it is now but I just don't know if Schofield can ever find a balance between the chubs and trout like Strawberry.
[signature]

[Fowl-Hook]

Scofield at this time is full of chub's, this condition provides a unique opportunity to try sterile Walleye and WIper to exploit the abundance of bait. A new approach woud be to take advantage of a reservoir full of bait. Rotenone use could be avoided entirely by allowing the chub extermination to occur naturally by non reproducing species. Study the chub decline over time and allow fisherman to experience what should be exceptional fishing for species other than Trout.
Use this as an opportunity to do something different rather than repeating the same master plan that led to the current situation.
Scofield has been treated with Rotenone several times in the past, repeating over and over again what has not worked probably should as a learning experience be avoided.
[signature]

[El_Matador]

Chubs are a good bait fish, I agree, but what exactly is going to eat 12" chubs? Just putting a few walleye in there isn't going to do anything until those fish reach 24" and can eat a 12" chub.

Having a few chubs in Scofield is actually a good thing. They produce a lot of minnows which are eaten by cutts and tigers. The big problem comes when you allow people to take home all the cutts and tigers. With no predators around the chubs all grow into adults and overrun the lake.

I wish there was a way to convince the F & G to put Lahontan cutts in there. They grow fast like tigers and fight like no other. Even a 20" Lahontan will give your 8 wt rod a workout!
[signature]

[Fowl-Hook]

12' chubs should make lots of little chubs. Any lake in Utah full of bait should be viewed as an opportunity to plant something that would flourish. The survey indicated Walleye were the number one plant selection, wipers next. Why not consider the Survey and do something different, and observe the results. Doing what has been done to Scofield several times in the past and expecting different results seems rather lame. When the chubs are diminished other species could become the appropriate choice. i'd much rather see millions spent on planting sterile Walleye as opposed to Rotenone.
[signature]

[dregs]

I'm not sure what the answer is here, but I'm pretty sure it's not Rotenone. It's expensive, difficult to acquire, and ultimately neither a quick nor permanent solution.

What is the opposition to planting walleye and/or wipers? Is it just that too many people want to have rainbows to catch and take home?

What went wrong with Scofield? Is it simply a case of too many people taking home adult-chub-eating-sized trout? Is it that the biology of the water has changed?

If it were up to me I'd stock whatever species is necessary to control the chubs, as long as that species is a good sport fish. And I'd adjust the regulations such that the fishery can sustain whatever pressure it's getting - even if that means very few people can take home fish. I welcome the slot limits.
[signature]

[gofish435]

Thanks for posting the results of the survey, Amy.

You can see from the comments that the DWR will have it's hands full trying to come up with a management plan that will satisfy anglers. The big problem is that any plan that is arrived at will take many years to accomplish. Despite the fact people think that anglers are a patient group, they are not.

What I see as the biggest problem with Scofield is the water management and the DWR has little to no control over that. We are in drought cycle now and that has made things even worse. How long has it been that the water at Scofield was actually clear enough to see the bottom in 8' - 10' of water? The weed beds on the south end of the lake are virtually none existent anymore because the water levels don't get high enough. We were fortunate that this years algae bloom seemed to only effect the chubs.

Thanks again for allowing the anglers to participate in the survey.[]
[signature]

[bassrods]

We need to keep only fish from Utah like the CHUB..Forget the trout..[cool][sly]
[signature]

[Kent]

[quote Fishrmn]

Please! Don't let them put Wipers and/or sterile Walleyes in Scofield.

[/quote]

Why not?
[signature]

[Fishrmn]

We're getting Walleyes everywhere now as it is. And none of the bucket plantings has been worth much, with the exception of Starvation. One of the biggest complaints from most Walleye enthusiasts is that Utah doesn't allow the use of live minnows. So when the UDWR succumbs to the idea of using Walleye to control Chubs, people will want to use live Chubs as bait.

Scofield is at too high an elevation for Wipers. They aren't going to do much in water that is less than 45° F. for nearly half of the year. It's the same reason that Smallmouth Bass don't successfully rear young at Strawberry Reservoir. For 5 or 6 months of the year they'll barely survive.

What works is Rotenone. What the problem is, has been, and will continue to be is that some people cannot believe that you can grow big fish without having little fish (bait fish) for them to eat, and they are willing to plant Chubs to accomplish that.



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

[Fowl-Hook]

Where specifically are we getting Walleyes that didn't already have them?
You, I and everyone else knows live bait will never fly in Utah and has nothing to do with a Scofield solution.
Spend the million or so dollars stocking Walleye instead of Rotenone. Try something that Scofield hasn't already seen multiple times in the past.
[signature]

[wiperhunter2]

[quote Dog-lover]
Spend the million or so dollars stocking Walleye instead of Rotenone. Try something that Scofield hasn't already seen multiple times in the past.[/quote]
I could not agree more, doing Rotenone, yet again, is a colossal waste of our license dollars. Considering the job the Walleye did to the chubs in Starvation they would be the best choice to control the chubs, IMO. Using sterile eyes in big numbers for a few years to get the chubs under control is the best option, then simple cut back on the numbers being stocked and increase the numbers of of trout being stocked, until the lake gets a better balance of trout versus chubs, once that balance is achieved, its just a matter of keeping that balance in check by adjusting the number of eyes being planted from year to year. Its a win win, IMO and I just don't see the trout ever being about to control the chubs on their own, without some serious help.
[signature]

[Kent]

[quote Fishrmn]

One of the biggest complaints from most Walleye enthusiasts is that Utah doesn't allow the use of live minnows. So when the UDWR succumbs to the idea of using Walleye to control Chubs, people will want to use live Chubs as bait...


What works is Rotenone. What the problem is, has been, and will continue to be is that some people cannot believe that you can grow big fish without having little fish (bait fish) for them to eat, and they are willing to plant Chubs to accomplish that.

[/quote]

It is obvious that chubs are going to reappear, either from those who think they have to fish with live minnows to catch trout or walleye or perhaps some chubs are missed in the upstream creeks that run into Scofield, when they rotenone everything, and make their way back into Scofield. I prefer a fishery that has multiple species. I find it more enjoyable to catch several different species on the same fishing trip.

If I were king for a day I would rotenone the reservoir, once again, ASAP (five years ago or even sooner would have been better) and replant with sterile rainbows and various other sterile species that will likely control the chubs as they reappear. I would also impose slot limits on the species that are to control the chubs. (BTW - I don't think this has been tried before. The cutts and tigers and slot limits were imposed after the chubs were already out of control.) The problem now is that the chubs are so thick that the cutts and tiger trout can't get them under control.
[signature]

[Fishrmn]

They're getting them under control. And the Walleyes would too. The problem is that it took 25 years for the Walleye to finally rid Starvation of enough Chubs that trout can be effectively planted and added to the fishery. And that was Walleye that weren't sterile. The Tigers could do the same thing at Scofield. The problem isn't that the predators can't eat all of the young of the year Chubs. It's the whole waiting for 25 years to get where we could be in two years with rotenone.



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

[300win]

I think a large stocking of bigger brown trout 2 pounds plus would control the chubs and provide the angles with some great angling opportunity [fishon]
[signature]

[Fishrmn]

And who's going to grow those 2 pound Brown Trout? And how are you gonna pay for them? The Tigers are capable of controlling the Chubs. But it's gonna take 20 years to get rid of enough of them to change anything. And once the young of the year Chubs are eaten every year the trout have a tough time getting big enough to eat any adult Chubs.



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