05-14-2012, 02:25 AM
Pat,
No one called Strawberry broken. Just pointed out that possibility that it may not have reached its potential yet and could be even better.
Although biologist have a degree, I really hate the assumption that they "know" more than your educated, experienced, well-studied angler. Like I mentioned before, these more "knowledgeable" biologist almost single handedly ruined Scofield and cost the state millions to treat and re-stock it. Several of us arm-chair biologist who actually fish Scofield were calling for the reduction of the 8 fish limit and addition of a slot years before the "biologist" were able to come up to the same conclusions.
I am not convinced that a few gill net studies and book learning is always more valuable than the actual experience and familiarity that educated fisherman can gain.
Strawberry is an extremely healthy fishery and is doing wonderful. But I find myself losing motivation to fish it and would rather drive twice as far for fish that will likely be smaller. Why? Because Strawberry is generally too predictable, the fish hardly fight and they are generally not very pretty. And I am not alone in my sentiments.
Add some tigers and sterile brookies and I would likely fish the lake 3 or 4 times as much as I do now and there seems to be room for them. The tigers will take over the rocky areas the cutts generally avoid and the brookies would take over the weed beds which the cutts only seem to enjoy temporarily.
The great thing is that these are sterile fish, and if they don't work, stop stocking. I don't think we are being selfish as I don't think anyone is promoting a fish at the expensive of the fishery. We are stating that we think there is space for improvement of an already amazing fishery. Throwing in some sterile species seems to be a low-risk, high reward option. Throw in some 10 lb tigers and 5 lb brookies into strawberry with the 10 lb cutts and bows and now we have ourselves one of the top trout destinations in the world!
[signature]
No one called Strawberry broken. Just pointed out that possibility that it may not have reached its potential yet and could be even better.
Although biologist have a degree, I really hate the assumption that they "know" more than your educated, experienced, well-studied angler. Like I mentioned before, these more "knowledgeable" biologist almost single handedly ruined Scofield and cost the state millions to treat and re-stock it. Several of us arm-chair biologist who actually fish Scofield were calling for the reduction of the 8 fish limit and addition of a slot years before the "biologist" were able to come up to the same conclusions.
I am not convinced that a few gill net studies and book learning is always more valuable than the actual experience and familiarity that educated fisherman can gain.
Strawberry is an extremely healthy fishery and is doing wonderful. But I find myself losing motivation to fish it and would rather drive twice as far for fish that will likely be smaller. Why? Because Strawberry is generally too predictable, the fish hardly fight and they are generally not very pretty. And I am not alone in my sentiments.
Add some tigers and sterile brookies and I would likely fish the lake 3 or 4 times as much as I do now and there seems to be room for them. The tigers will take over the rocky areas the cutts generally avoid and the brookies would take over the weed beds which the cutts only seem to enjoy temporarily.
The great thing is that these are sterile fish, and if they don't work, stop stocking. I don't think we are being selfish as I don't think anyone is promoting a fish at the expensive of the fishery. We are stating that we think there is space for improvement of an already amazing fishery. Throwing in some sterile species seems to be a low-risk, high reward option. Throw in some 10 lb tigers and 5 lb brookies into strawberry with the 10 lb cutts and bows and now we have ourselves one of the top trout destinations in the world!
[signature]