03-07-2017, 07:30 PM
Well... the last time they treated Scofield was to get rid of walleyes. There was mention of Scofield not being good habitat for walleyes. Now someone wants to put sterile walleyes in there? If you ever depleted the chubs, you'd have to plant forage fish to maintain the fishery. You think it's expensive to use rotenone? How expensive would it be to feed walleyes? When the walleyes finally eliminated the chubs at Starvation after 30 years, someone decided to put the scourge of Yellow Perch in there. And just what would everyone want to use to fish for walleyes? Well the number one thing for walleyes everywhere else is live minnows. What do you think got us in this situation in the first place?
White Bass were deemed to be a poor choice for Deer Creek. Elevation and cold water equals a short growing season. Wipers aren't really growing by leaps and bounds in Otter Creek. What makes anyone believe that Wipers would do well in Scofield? It is covered with ice from the end of November till sometime in April. Smallmouth Bass aren't the answer either.
Northern Pike are completely out of the question. It's been discussed, and the lack of protection from downstream migration COMPLETELY eliminates ANY new species that could reproduce in the streams below Scofield.
Rotenone treatments work. Why wait for 25 or 30 years with what we have now in order to see if Tiger Trout or Wipers will take care of it. We could have a fishery in two years.
Since you've asked, I'll tell you why I think they didn't take the opportunity to use rotenone. I've sent a couple of emails back and forth with the Fisheries Chief for Southeastern Utah. I really think he wants to be the first person to eradicate chubs without rotenone. There is a committee. The majority of the responses were in favor of using rotenone. But when the committee is headed by someone who doesn't want to spend the money for rotenone, or disrupt his aspirations for fixing the problem without rotenone, you get what you've been getting. Stonewalled.
Walleye are great table fare. I've caught my share before, but they aren't much of a fight. Wipers are cool, but they aren't going to like the cold water of Scofield. Rotenone. Slot limits. Tiger Trout and Cutthroat Trout.
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF]
[signature]
White Bass were deemed to be a poor choice for Deer Creek. Elevation and cold water equals a short growing season. Wipers aren't really growing by leaps and bounds in Otter Creek. What makes anyone believe that Wipers would do well in Scofield? It is covered with ice from the end of November till sometime in April. Smallmouth Bass aren't the answer either.
Northern Pike are completely out of the question. It's been discussed, and the lack of protection from downstream migration COMPLETELY eliminates ANY new species that could reproduce in the streams below Scofield.
Rotenone treatments work. Why wait for 25 or 30 years with what we have now in order to see if Tiger Trout or Wipers will take care of it. We could have a fishery in two years.
Since you've asked, I'll tell you why I think they didn't take the opportunity to use rotenone. I've sent a couple of emails back and forth with the Fisheries Chief for Southeastern Utah. I really think he wants to be the first person to eradicate chubs without rotenone. There is a committee. The majority of the responses were in favor of using rotenone. But when the committee is headed by someone who doesn't want to spend the money for rotenone, or disrupt his aspirations for fixing the problem without rotenone, you get what you've been getting. Stonewalled.
Walleye are great table fare. I've caught my share before, but they aren't much of a fight. Wipers are cool, but they aren't going to like the cold water of Scofield. Rotenone. Slot limits. Tiger Trout and Cutthroat Trout.
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF]
[signature]