08-07-2018, 09:44 PM
[quote PBH]
Joe -- I can't answer those questions specifically concerning Scofield. But, I can offer these ideas:
We are not trying, or asking, to have a self-sustaining trout fishery at Scofield. Rather, we are asking for hybrids (wipers, tiger musky, tiger trout) with the addition of some trout (rainbows / cutthroat). Almost all of these fish would require management through stocking. While it might be a great thing to do, habitat improvement on tributaries should not be a necessary requirement.
[/quote]
I see. Still, water chemistry/quality is a huge factor in which species thrive and which ones struggle. Trout (all trout) have fairly high demands on water quality. If the quality is not there, rough fish will eventually take over.
Even the condition of the spawning streams play a huge role. If the stream conditions favor trout - even though not enough to 100% self-sustain - it's better that they favor trout rather than rough fish which are already prone to population explosions.
I'm concerned about this at Lost Creek by the way... the chub density was super high there this past spring (late spring)... wondering if that lake will suffer a similar fate as Scofield.
[quote PBH]
As for water levels, again, I can't answer what a normal water year looks like for Scofield. If levels fluctuate and are lowered frequently -- this would further complement a rotenone treatment. The less water there is in the lake, the less rotenone it takes to treat the lake. Drought years are great years to treat lakes.
[/quote]
I think they would drain down the lake anyway if electing to poison it for that very reason (lower cost).
Trout - especially rainbows - don't deal well with large fluctuations in water levels. The shallows (of any lake) are where the groceries are made. Leaving that high & dry does no good for hungry trout.
[signature]
Joe -- I can't answer those questions specifically concerning Scofield. But, I can offer these ideas:
We are not trying, or asking, to have a self-sustaining trout fishery at Scofield. Rather, we are asking for hybrids (wipers, tiger musky, tiger trout) with the addition of some trout (rainbows / cutthroat). Almost all of these fish would require management through stocking. While it might be a great thing to do, habitat improvement on tributaries should not be a necessary requirement.
[/quote]
I see. Still, water chemistry/quality is a huge factor in which species thrive and which ones struggle. Trout (all trout) have fairly high demands on water quality. If the quality is not there, rough fish will eventually take over.
Even the condition of the spawning streams play a huge role. If the stream conditions favor trout - even though not enough to 100% self-sustain - it's better that they favor trout rather than rough fish which are already prone to population explosions.
I'm concerned about this at Lost Creek by the way... the chub density was super high there this past spring (late spring)... wondering if that lake will suffer a similar fate as Scofield.
[quote PBH]
As for water levels, again, I can't answer what a normal water year looks like for Scofield. If levels fluctuate and are lowered frequently -- this would further complement a rotenone treatment. The less water there is in the lake, the less rotenone it takes to treat the lake. Drought years are great years to treat lakes.
[/quote]
I think they would drain down the lake anyway if electing to poison it for that very reason (lower cost).
Trout - especially rainbows - don't deal well with large fluctuations in water levels. The shallows (of any lake) are where the groceries are made. Leaving that high & dry does no good for hungry trout.
[signature]