05-09-2012, 07:40 PM
I understand that plant tigers in strawberry, other lakes would lose some tiger plantings. But I can think of a dozen lakes that could handle or benefit from less tiger planting (Huntington, Electric, Currant Creek, several lakes in the Uintas, Hyrum, Mantua, Minersville, Nine Mile, Ogden River, Duck Fork, etc). Take 200-2000 from each of these and wa-la, 5,000 to 10,000 little tigers to plant.
I also don't think it would be too difficult to raise more tiger trout and brookies if angler hours doubled at the berry. I would fish it 3 or 4 times the amount I currently do (like I did with Scofield) if this were too happen and I wouldn't be alone.
Tiger trout seem to stay close to shoreline and hide in rocky crevices while bows and cutts seem to stay out in open water. Tigers also seem to be a more bit wiser and elusive than both cutts and bows, maybe due to the brown trout in it. From my personal observations, small tigers have a higher probability at survival than both cutts and bows.
Brookies are planted all over the high mountain lakes and often dropped in by airplane. That can't be cheap. I imagine driving up and dumping 10,000 brookies throughout the lake wouldn't be too hard to do. Most of those high mountain lakes have too many fish in them anyways, receive little pressure, are full of stunted fish and most die of old age.
I love catching the cutts at the Berry on occasion, but don't think I am acting "spoiled" by attempting to improve a place I love to fish. Do you call all innovators "spoiled" for continuing to attempt to improve things? Although extremely appreciative for how well we have it in Utah as fishermen (arguably the best land-locked state for fishing), I see nothing wrong or spoiled with innovative thinking to try to improve things.
You are right that we are not fish biologist but only fishermen, but I know that cutts and tigers tend to do well together and brookies like the mossy/weedy shoreline. I am sure the real biologist could figure out how to make it work and make best use of resources and funds. But in our experience and observations, we think it COULD work and would like it to be considered.
The thought of cutts in 20-25 feet of water on shelves, tigers up in the rocks, brookies in the weeds and bows in the open water sounds like not only fun, but increases odds of catching fish. If one or two species turn off or are too deep, at least they other ones are catchable. Anglers can also target a certain species.
I see it as a win-win but I am dense![crazy]
[signature]
I also don't think it would be too difficult to raise more tiger trout and brookies if angler hours doubled at the berry. I would fish it 3 or 4 times the amount I currently do (like I did with Scofield) if this were too happen and I wouldn't be alone.
Tiger trout seem to stay close to shoreline and hide in rocky crevices while bows and cutts seem to stay out in open water. Tigers also seem to be a more bit wiser and elusive than both cutts and bows, maybe due to the brown trout in it. From my personal observations, small tigers have a higher probability at survival than both cutts and bows.
Brookies are planted all over the high mountain lakes and often dropped in by airplane. That can't be cheap. I imagine driving up and dumping 10,000 brookies throughout the lake wouldn't be too hard to do. Most of those high mountain lakes have too many fish in them anyways, receive little pressure, are full of stunted fish and most die of old age.
I love catching the cutts at the Berry on occasion, but don't think I am acting "spoiled" by attempting to improve a place I love to fish. Do you call all innovators "spoiled" for continuing to attempt to improve things? Although extremely appreciative for how well we have it in Utah as fishermen (arguably the best land-locked state for fishing), I see nothing wrong or spoiled with innovative thinking to try to improve things.
You are right that we are not fish biologist but only fishermen, but I know that cutts and tigers tend to do well together and brookies like the mossy/weedy shoreline. I am sure the real biologist could figure out how to make it work and make best use of resources and funds. But in our experience and observations, we think it COULD work and would like it to be considered.
The thought of cutts in 20-25 feet of water on shelves, tigers up in the rocks, brookies in the weeds and bows in the open water sounds like not only fun, but increases odds of catching fish. If one or two species turn off or are too deep, at least they other ones are catchable. Anglers can also target a certain species.
I see it as a win-win but I am dense![crazy]
[signature]