Posts: 15,518
Threads: 1,314
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
12
[quote k2muskie]
Finally from the arm chair sit at home lambasting management plans why aren't you working for the DNR to voice your justifiable rationale with quantifiable evidence for your way...put that in your damn puzzler is what I say.
[/quote]
Interesting, for lack of a stronger adjective.
BTW - this is not the UDWR plan, this is the plan drawn up by the committee that was formed to develop a management plan. It would be interesting to have done an anonymous poll of the UDWR biologists to get their opinion on what they would have recommended be done.
BTW - how much does it cost to raise all of those fish in the hatcheries to a larger size so that they have a chance to be large enough to eat a chub and not starve because the chubs are so thick? I truly hope the current management plan is successful, because it is what we are stuck with for at least another four years and I want Scofield to recover, because I want to fish it. If they aren't successful and they poison Scofield (They are getting everything lined up so they can proceed if the current plan doesn't work.), I hope you are willing to come on here and show the same support that you are showing for this plan.
You seem to look down your nose at those who fish for trout and somehow those who will only fish for tiger muskies (and perch) are somehow superior. Well, sorry to tell you, but that doesn't make anyone any better or any worse, we are all just different. And for what it is worth I have spent far less time fishing for trout than fishing for all other fish this year. I just enjoy fishing for a wide variety of fish, but that doesn't make me any more special or less special than any other angler, including the PowerBait crowd.
[signature]
Posts: 1,342
Threads: 14
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation:
2
Haha I was waiting for that reply. It’s being diverse I’ve stated that. It isn’t just Trout it’s other species not the flavor for others including ole timers. Yep I et al enjoy fishing for the following; Crappie, Kokanee, Perch, TM, Walleye . Yep I’m partial to said species.
Let’s wait and see. As I said I’ve heard and have read positive reports on not only Scofield but other bodies of water. You et al are target fixated on past glory days and not willing to see if any DWR MP will work with no poison used.
Unfortunately per your one sided attitude with a couple others; Nope only poison is the way forward costing again dolla, dolla,dolla. Really expend funds to poison when you can develop a management plan (MP) and expand species potential.
Slow down grasshoppers and patience is a virtue.
[signature]
Posts: 15,518
Threads: 1,314
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
12
We are actually probably closer in our thinking than either one of us are willing to admit. I suggest we just agree to disagree and all is good.
I think my biggest problem is that they waited so long to do anything serious towards fixing the problem. If they would have acted sooner (when the chubs were first found) beyond planting some tiger trout and then eventually some cutthroat and finally instituting a slot similar to Strawberry (but not when the tiger trout and cutts were first planted) they would have had a better chance to get the chubs under control long before now and at far less expense (raising predators to a larger size to plant isn't free either) and likely we wouldn't even be having this discussion today.
[signature]
Posts: 656
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
0
I could only bother/stand to read about 5 sentences of your reply.
If you go back and look through my replies on this thread, I have been respectful and not demeaning. Must have struck a nerve or something, because I don't think the same can be said for you. It is obvious you are the type of person who has a hard time seeing other people's point of view. It is a shame you aren't in charge. You are going to be an unhappy person about this situation until they do exactly what YOU want them to. That is a shame.
The worst part is, you can't say for certain if what they are doing is going to work or not. Nobody can - but you sure have tricked yourself into thinking you know exactly what the outcome is going to be. Fisheries are complex ecosystems and they can boom and bust on the smallest of variables. You seem to think there is an easy answer and there obviously isn't in this situation. Most everybody else on here - can see that.
Further, most of us on here can see that trying new things to solve an old problem is actually kind of a novel idea. Because in doing so, you have the opportunity to learn something you wouldn't have otherwise. Trial and error is a huge part of science. Adjust the inputs and study what happens to the outputs. Even if you don't get it right after a few tries, you at least learn what doesn't work. You get data. The current plan will either be a huge success or a huge failure, or likely something in the middle. But what they learn from Scofield will be useful information for the future management of fisheries in Utah. I agree with K2 - patience is a virtue.
[signature]
Posts: 656
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
0
Hindsight is always 20/20.
[signature]
Posts: 14,302
Threads: 181
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
15
I think that this post has run its course and we're not going to convince one side or the other so before things turn to name calling let's let this post die or if it continues in a contentious manner I'll lock it. Appreciate everyone's passion on this topic and let's hope for the best and a good winter so the drought doesn't run it dry. Thanks J
[signature]
Posts: 3,084
Threads: 21
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
12
[quote k2muskie]Poison cost $$$,$$$,$$$ plus. Where do yo thing the money comes from. [/quote]
Since this issue is now about money, let's discuss it a bit.
The claim is that it's too expensive. So, the question is: how expensive is it?
Another claim is that the State can't afford it. Why not? Why couldn't a $500,000 (just a guess - it was $250k in 1991) project be budgeted for? Certainly this is not an amount that could not be properly budgeted for. Further, why would the State be solely responsible for the costs? Federal grants are available, as well as other monies from Federal resources to help with these types of projects.
Money is always an issue, but it isn't a "slam the door closed" problem. With proper budgeting and planning, the money would be taken care of. I'm curious if the DWR every said that money was a legitimate reason to not treat Scofield? Sure, as in the case with Yuba, throwing money at the problem may not be wise. But I don't think that Scofield was in the same situation. If money was the reason, then our managers aren't utilizing their resources properly.
The money could have been (and could be in the future) secured for a project like this. It's not like we're talking about treating Strawberry again.
(moderator: why close the discussion? I haven't seen any issues with this discussion. sure, it's passionate -- but has it really digressed to the point of closing it? I think not!)
[#00bf00]No name calling or personal attacks so I'm leaving it open as long as it doesn't turn personal... But just keeping an eye out so it doesn't go bad... We know how passionate everyone is about fishing on this site..[/#00bf00]
[signature]
Posts: 1,544
Threads: 44
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation:
3
[quote PBH][quote k2muskie]Poison cost $$$,$$$,$$$ plus. Where do yo thing the money comes from. [/quote]
Since this issue is now about money, let's discuss it a bit.
The claim is that it's too expensive. So, the question is: how expensive is it?
[/quote]
Since the cost of treating the reservoir has been such a big part of the discussion, think about how much money that the reservoir being, a poor fishery for so many years, has cost the State of Utah.
Lost revenue for the State Parks campgrounds, local business, fishing licenses, fuel, property values, and tourism makes the cost of treament insignificant.
There has been a lot of colateral damge over the years all associated with the quality of the fishing.[:/]
[signature]
Posts: 3,084
Threads: 21
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
12
[quote gofish435]
Since the cost of treating the reservoir has been such a big part of the discussion, think about how much money that the reservoir being, a poor fishery for so many years, has cost the State of Utah.
Lost revenue for the State Parks campgrounds, local business, fishing licenses, fuel, property values, and tourism makes the cost of treament insignificant.
There has been a lot of colateral damge over the years all associated with the quality of the fishing.[:/][/quote]
It's been posted numerous times that the cost of not treating a fishery is more expensive than treating:
[quote wormandbobber]Just an FYI, but the USFWS and the American Fisheries Society have both determined that using rotenone as a kind of reset button for managing fisheries is very cost effective. In fact, it is often viewed as more costly not to rotenone fisheries. According to the USFWS, “It has been estimated that for
each dollar spent on rotenone
and stocked trout, anglers gained
from $32 to $105 worth of fish
ing. On trout lakes that were
stocked but not treated, the gain
from fish stocking alone was
only $10 to $15.”
https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/fed...onebro.pdf[/quote]
But some of these guys only want to hear (and read) what they want to hear (and read). They want to keep saying "try something new". They won't accept that none of this is new. It's all been done, with data to back it up.
[signature]
Posts: 481
Threads: 24
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
7
Any thoughts on water quality issues - main lake and spawning tributaries?
This was a major reason for the (final) success at Strawberry... much work had to be done to turn the spawning tribs from sucker muck into trout gravel... and most of that land was public.
Any ideas for similar concerns at Scofield?
Also, how are the water levels holding up? Does the water level fluctuate greatly on a seasonal basis? 90% of a stillwater trout's diet is generated in areas less than 15ft deep... does the water level drop greatly in Scofield over the summer... essentially killing off the forage shelf and exposing young trout to predators?
[signature]
Posts: 3,084
Threads: 21
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
12
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.
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.
Exposing young trout in low water levels may, or may not, be an issue depending on the stocking quotas and management plan. Maybe the trout stocking program would benefit the predators in the lake, if the forage fish population were knocked back far enough?
[signature]
Posts: 481
Threads: 24
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
7
[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]
Posts: 1,544
Threads: 44
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation:
3
[quote Joe_Dizzy]Any thoughts on water quality issues - main lake and spawning tributaries?
This was a major reason for the (final) success at Strawberry... much work had to be done to turn the spawning tribs from sucker muck into trout gravel... and most of that land was public.
Any ideas for similar concerns at Scofield?
Also, how are the water levels holding up? Does the water level fluctuate greatly on a seasonal basis? 90% of a stillwater trout's diet is generated in areas less than 15ft deep... does the water level drop greatly in Scofield over the summer... essentially killing off the forage shelf and exposing young trout to predators?[/quote]
Scofield does have some water quality issues, it is listed as an impaired water by the DWQ folks. There are problems with algae blooms, there is one going on now. The DWR has done some restoration work on a section of Mud Creek (one of the tributaries). There is some spawning that occurs in most of the tributaries.
The water supply has always been marginal to maintain a healthy fishery. Last year was the first time in 6 years that the reservoir actually filled. The level is at 54% now and dropping. The water users routinely drop the level to under 20% in the fall. It's not a deep reservoir so it does grow bugs and fish quickly when the conditions are good.
The other concern for Scofield in the future is the water supply. If the Gooseberry Narrows Project is built in Sanpete County the water flowing into Scofield will be decreased considerably.
[signature]
Posts: 3,084
Threads: 21
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
12
[quote Joe_Dizzy]If the quality is not there, rough fish will eventually take over.[/quote]
This is why the plan is to utilize hybrids. Specifically wipers. Wipers have shown in other reservoirs (Newcastle and Minersville amongst others) to successfully lower chub and shiner populations. One HUGE unknow with using wipers at Scofield is the elevation. Wipers have never successfully been used at that high of an elevation. This is why the wipers stocked at Scofield are larger than those stocked at other reservoirs. Larger size fish also mean higher costs to raise. So, this trial of wipers could potential cost quite a bit of money. And, it might not work. Thus the concern from some anglers.
[quote Joe_Dizzy]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.[/quote]
Utah doesn't have many self-sustaining rainbow trout fisheries. In fact, I can only think of 1 off the top of my head -- and it burned up. We don't see rainbow trout fisheries where natural recruitment is a top priority.
Cutthroat, on the other hand, are managed in areas with natural recruitment in mind. However, Scofield is not one of those places. Again, I do not believe the goal is to have naturally recruiting trout at Scofield. I 100% believe in habitat improvements. Don't get me wrong. But the goal at Scofield is to simply provide a viable fishery. This means that stocking is going to be a primary tool used to sustain fish populations.
The question on Scofield still remains: how long do we wait before we utilize available tools with a history of success?
[quote Joe_Dizzy]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]
I don't know much about Lost Creek. It looks like they do stock tiger trout and splake. This is good. I have no idea if it is enough or not. Not knowing the history of the lake, I really have no thoughts on it's future.
[signature]
Posts: 1,172
Threads: 33
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation:
3
Quote:The question on Scofield still remains: how long do we wait before we utilize available tools with a history of success?
It seems we have been waiting along time for success at Scofield, It has been poisoned several times, and now we are at the same point, so I would not call it a success, Yes there has been band aids put on a ongoing problem, but the root cause of the problem has never been managed to success.
It seems to be that they are looking into a long term success rather than the history of the short term fix.
I believe you are aware of time line on when they will consider the tool that you are wondering about.
[signature]
O.C.F.D.
![[Image: download.jpg]](https://i.ibb.co/zS9dSGY/download.jpg)
Posts: 481
Threads: 24
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
7
[quote PBH]
I don't know much about Lost Creek. It looks like they do stock tiger trout and splake. This is good. I have no idea if it is enough or not. Not knowing the history of the lake, I really have no thoughts on it's future.
[/quote]
So this is a concept that I cannot wrap my brain around... using coldwater gamefish to control warmwater baitfish populations???
Lost Creek only sits at about 6000 feet... so most of Jun through Sep the surface temps are well above the comfort/fatal levels for trout. No problem since the lake stratifies and those fish can find comfort 30-50 feet below the surface in the thermocline. Problem is, the chubs spend most of their lives in the warm shallows... so right when they are spawning and their young are feeding and flourishing, there's no gamefish that will be hunting them for 4-5 months at least. By then their numbers are so great that the trout can't keep up with them.
Other issue with chubs is that they can feed on plant matter. So lakes that drop and expose their shelves, killing off the trout forage, continue to produce good growing conditions for chubs. Now you've got trout trying to compete against massive swarms of chubs for the available plankton plumes. Guess who wins that battle if water conditions favor one versus the other.
In my experience, warmwater predators are needed to prey on warmwater baitfish. Just have to hope that these predators don't develop a preference for the much easier to spot/catch hatchery trout. [  ]
[signature]
Posts: 3,084
Threads: 21
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
12
[quote MSM1970]It has been poisoned several times, and now we are at the same point, so I would not call it a success,[/quote]
That's because you fail to recognize what the management plan was. With a management plan that called for frequent rotenone treatments, those treatments certainly were successfull. Each time the lake was treated anglers were greeted with good fishing for 7-8 years followed by ~2 years of bad, followed by another treatment. That was the plan, and the plan worked.
Today the plan is the manage Scofield using hybrid predators better suited at predation on chubs. What is the best strategy to get those hybrids to a point where they can successfully manage the chub population? Should we give the chubs a 15 year head start? Or might it work better to give the predators the head start?
Joe -- I'm not so sure that I agree with your ideas about trout, temperatures, and feeding. What I will say is that maybe Lost Creek could be a good candidate for wipers? I don't know...
[signature]
Posts: 481
Threads: 24
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
7
[quote PBH]
Joe -- I'm not so sure that I agree with your ideas about trout, temperatures, and feeding. .
[/quote]
Well I just can't envision a 5-lb Splake or Tiger swimming around in 3 feet of 80 degree water where all the chubs are. Actually they wouldn't be swimming at all in that water... floating maybe.
[signature]
Posts: 3,084
Threads: 21
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
12
that's warmer water than Lake Powell. it's also warmer than what we see at Minersville (lower elevation, and probably shallower overall).
I'll have to take that response with a little grain of salt. But, like I said already, I don't know much about Lost Creek.
Although, since the conversation in this thread is surrounding the DWR using alternative methods, thinking outside the box, and trying something using the "wait and see" approach -- I guess maybe the Lost Creek management plan is perfectly appropriate?
[signature]
Posts: 481
Threads: 24
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
7
[quote PBH]
Although, since the conversation in this thread is surrounding the DWR using alternative methods, thinking outside the box, and trying something using the "wait and see" approach -- I guess maybe the Lost Creek management plan is perfectly appropriate?
[/quote]
Lost Creek has a few things working in its favor... slot limit on trout, limited shoreline access, no camping, and a nightmare of an access road. All combine to reduce overall harvest.
I'm just speculating on the water temp... last time I was there it was 62* F at 8:00a (Jun 3rd). Total chub fest.
Time will tell I suppose.
[signature]
|
