Posts: 15,520
Threads: 1,314
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
12
[quote doggonefishin]
The other angle to this argument is that Scofield was previously treated and just put back on general regs. What also has worked every time is to treat and immediately put in the predators plus a slot limit. That has worked every time. Worked at Strawberry, worked at Panguitch. It would work at Scofield.
[/quote]
Not only general regs but also except for planting some kokanee once, I believe all that has been planted immediately after poisoning has been rainbows. Rainbows have never done well in controlling chubs.
[signature]
Posts: 15,520
Threads: 1,314
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
12
[quote Lonnie]
The cutthroats I have caught this year were all healthy 12-14" fatty's.
[/quote]
We caught one cutt that I would describe as meeting the defininition of "fatty's". All of the other cutthroat were on the skinny side of the scale, when comparing them to most of the cutthroat that I catch at Strawberry. Unless the chub population can be substantially decreased (hopefully, the tiger muskies and wipers accomplish this) I have my doubts that many of the cutthroat we caught will get large enough to switch over to eating chubs.
I plan on participating with their gill netting study in October and I am looking forward to seeing what shows up in the nets.
[signature]
Posts: 643
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2003
Reputation:
0
I agree that the best and fastest situation would have been to poison , then stock preditors right off to attempt to control. However the est 2 years ago was in the 1.5 million dollar range. Not a real feasible option. In fact this was my suggestion when the DWR did the survey 2 years ago in the comment section.
And yes , If you consider a poisoning every 10 years for a few good years short term a success , then I guess the others were a success. .
I grew up fishing this lake and the streams in and out . But I am all for trying a better long term solution. I am all for what is happening there. And the thing is if it fail , the poisoning option is still there. But keep in mind the DWR has little financial resources to work with. The poisoning of pelican lake was delayed a couple years due to the budget not being there.
Kent: One month ago my sons and I fished the walk in area on the west side , we caught about 50/50 chubs to cutthroats, and while they were not trophys, their health was much improved. And the ratio of chubs was much lower. The cutthroats were nice and fat, Very few were the skinny ones of the last few years. We fish that bank every year a couple times , and the difference has been noticeable.
Now I use starvation as a model for Scofield, 15-20 years ago It was hard to be catching anything but chubs, If we learn from that lake and keep steryl controlled preditors in Scofield ( instead of the over populating walleye) I think Scofield has a real chance
[signature]
Posts: 15,520
Threads: 1,314
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
12
[quote Lonnie]
Kent: One month ago my sons and I fished the walk in area on the west side , we caught about 50/50 chubs to cutthroats, and while they were not trophys, their health was much improved. And the ratio of chubs was much lower. The cutthroats were nice and fat, Very few were the skinny ones of the last few years. We fish that bank every year a couple times , and the difference has been noticeable.
[/quote]
Lonnie, I probably don't appreciate the apparent improvement in the quality of the cutthroats in Scofield because I haven't fished it for probably 6 or 7 years. As a result, I haven't been catching the small and skinny fish in recent years. It is probably unfair to compare them to the cutthroats in Strawberry that grow very fast, and in MNSHO are, on average, far heavier than the similar length cutthroats I caught in Scofield.
[signature]
Posts: 37
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2014
Reputation:
0
My kids don't care if their chubs or trout, it's a fish and they had fun, and we helped to reduce the numbers by a fraction.
Pics are from last year.
[signature]
Posts: 15,520
Threads: 1,314
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
12
I actually agree with your kids. I have caught chubs on three different trips this year (one trip was just upstream from the bridge in your picture) and chubs put up a decent fight and it can be non-stop action catching them. If they just weren't so darn prolific of spawners that they overrun everything else in the fishery.
[signature]
Posts: 643
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2003
Reputation:
0
Your right , you cant compare the Scofield cutthroats to strawberry as it currently stands. There is no comparison there. But the cutthroats this year compared to say 2 years ago at Scofield have shown improvement. And while they are not growing fast , there is reason to be optimistic. The predatory management plan is only in its 2nd year. My point is lets give it 3 or 4 years when the TM start to reach a 40" range, and the wipers take hold, and maybe some steril walleye are introduced .
Then we will have a better data base to see if it is working or not . If not then this conversation should be revisited .
After watching what has happened at joes valley the last 10 years, my gut feeling is the nay sayers may be talking about the trophy opportunities at Scofield.
[signature]
Posts: 656
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
0
The naysayers aren't interested in trophy fishing opportunities - if they were, they wouldn't be for poisoning a lake with a huge supply of food in it (for predatory fish).
They want the status quo. They want a lake where you can go and catch a cooler full of 2-4lb healthy rainbow trout in a few hours and call it a day. That kind of fishing appeals to a lot of people. I get it. But there are other places in Utah where you can load up on "eater" trout, lots of them if you look.
Not very many places in Utah or any state that produce trophy fish on a regular basis. If managed correctly and promoted correctly, Scofield offers a rare chance at that, and plenty of people will go there for that opportunity.
In the end, it will either work out or it won't. They are trying to make it work. If in 5-10 years they can't take advantage of the chubs... the answer will clearly be to poison it and start over. They will have learned a thing or two by trying all of the things they are trying now though and just the data from experimenting at Scofield will be helpful at other fisheries in Utah in the future. But don't expect the naysayers to ever say this current plan should stay, regardless of the outcome. They won't be happy unless it is poisoned and turned into a status quo trout lake.
[signature]
Posts: 3,084
Threads: 21
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
12
[quote Lonnie] The predatory management plan is only in its 2nd year. My point is lets give it 3 or 4 years when the TM start to reach a 40" range, and the wipers take hold, and maybe some steril walleye are introduced .
Then we will have a better data base to see if it is working or not . [/quote]
Again, (beating a dead horse), WHY WAIT? Why do you guys want to wait 3-4 years (or more) to see if it is working or not? Why waste those years??
[quote Gemcityslayer]The naysayers aren't interested in trophy fishing opportunities - if they were, they wouldn't be for poisoning a lake with a huge supply of food in it (for predatory fish).
They want the status quo. They want a lake where you can go and catch a cooler full of 2-4lb healthy rainbow trout in a few hours and call it a day. ...
...If in 5-10 years they can't take advantage of the chubs... the answer will clearly be to poison it and start over. [/quote]
Now we are waiting 5-10 years!!
Gem -- you couldn't be further from the truth! I want a trophy fishery! One with wipers, and TMs! The difference between you and me is that I understand fish populations.
Here is what you can't get through your head: small fish, even tiger musky and wipers, rely on zooplankton to live when they are small. Amazing, I know. Those fingerling fish do not start eating chubs when they are 1" long! Crazy, I get it. But its true.
What do chubs eat? The same thing. So all those wipers and tms and walleyes are all competing for the same food that those chubs are already consuming.
The result? SLOW GROWTH. Those mean, nasty, voracious, toothy predators can't compete with the lowly chubs! And because of this, it takes them years, and years, and years to establish and develop a base that can compete with chubs. Not control, but rather compete. It will take a very long time before those predators can ever take over control of that lake.
On the other hand, if you rotenone it and knock those chubs back by 80-90%, the immediately restock with the wipers and tms and walleyes -- guess what? Those 1" fingerling no longer have to compete for zooplankton. What does that mean? FAST GROWTH. Those predator fish then quickly grow to a size where they are able to convert over to pisciverous (fish eating) diet. It happens fast! Once they convert, then they have the upper hand, and chub populations are then controlled! All in 3 years!!
So, here we are in year 2. We are still discussing and preaching patience. Give it more time. Another 3-4 years, and maybe then we'll know if it's working or not...
Next year could have been an awesome year at Scofield. We could have been catching 25 - 30"+ tms. 18" wipers. Possibly even some 18-20" cutthroat and rainbows....
Instead, we'll continue to talk about small cutthroat, missing wipers, and the potential to catch a 40" tm in another 4 years. But it will still be a great place to catch chubs! 
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
We've been waiting 13 years for the predators and slot limits to control the chubs at Scofield. We're in the 18th year of dealing with the chubs. 5 to 10 more years? And then what? Another 5 or 10?
Where are the chubs in Flaming Gorge? Not in the deeper areas of the reservoir where the Lake Trout hang out. Deep water and Lakers there, and deep water and Splake at Joes Valley.
PBH has the right idea. Poison. Replant. Get the biomass working for you instead of against you. The food supply at Scofield is insects. The chubs do a great job of utilizing them. The cutthroats not so much.
I don't want eater trout. I want the thrill of catching a bunch of nice fish versus fishing for days on end hoping for a strike from one Muskie. Because there are hundreds of boats waiting in line to launch at Pineview to fish for Muskies. Right? Oh wait, that's what USED to be happening at Scofield. Parking lot full of boat trailers. People fishing at every available spot along the shoreline. State Park turning people away because all of the campsites were full. Except they were fishing for trout.
There are enough places to throw $30 lures at Muskies, lots of them if you look. Because you can go to Joes Valley and have the place to yourself. Johnson Reservoir is a destination spot for Muskies. Right? People are flocking to Fish Lake for the Tiger Muskies. Right? Nobody bothers with the Macs. Nobody wants to figure out the Kokanee. Bullock Reservoir is standing room only. Right? Cottonwood is on everybody's bucket list. Right? Lots of opportunities at Newton though.
http://www.ewcd.org/cameras/joes-valley-reservoir/
Check out the camera at Joes Valley. You might see a boat if you're lucky.
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{[/green][size 4][green]⦇[/green][/size][blue]°>[/blue]
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
[quote kentofnsl]None showed up in the gill nets in May. Per Justin Hart, "However, we put them into Huntington North for 3 years before we found them in our nets, so maybe we aren't too surprised we haven't seen them at Scofield yet. [red]This was the one species we had concerns with regarding overwinter survival, there are not many wiper fisheries, or maybe any, at this elevation."[/red][/quote]
Did they plant 7 1/2 inch Wipers at Huntington North? How about 10 1/2 inch Wipers? They did at Scofield. They knew going into this that there are no Wiper fisheries at 7,600' elevation. But hey, spend money and throw them in there. They might do something there that they've never done anywhere else. Like survive for 5 or 6 months without eating.
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{[/green][size 4][green]⦇[/green][/size][blue]°>[/blue]
[signature]
Posts: 33,355
Threads: 418
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
33
LOL, what makes you think the wipers would not eat for 5 or 6 months, you hatred for any idea, other than yours, of poisoning that lake, has you not thinking right. It does not matter if there is ice on a lake or not those wiper will still be eating, as long as there is fish to eat and what about the crawfish there, don't you think those are on a wiper's menu. The most likely reason they did not catch any wipers in their nets is because of the small numbers they stocked and that we did not put their nets where the wipers were. The same thing happened at Willard a few years past, the DWR were not putting their nets in the locations where the fish were, the result were few fish were showing up in their gill net survey, TubeDude suggested they move their nets or increase their coverage and low and behold the next year they started finding those fish. The first years gill net survey means very little IMO but we will see how it goes as time goes on but I think in the future there will be a different outcome. This conversation is doing little to change the outcome of what is already in motion, you naysayers are only beating a dead horse at this point.
[signature]
Posts: 1,342
Threads: 14
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation:
2
Ha well I agree WH2 on this issue and thank you for pointing out the obvious for the naysayers who just see poison as the answer.
Poison and all the permits COSTS dolla, dolla and the DWR fishery division has limited funding.
For the naysayers well if it isn't what you want well you lambast any idea that isn't yours. So sit back and lets have this conversation in a one to 3 years just like one saying there's now way they'd stock TM into Scofield. Well guess what they did and also stock Wiper.
If the current management plan shows it won't work in several years they re-evaluate. Data point Joes Valley is now thriving per my visits and others I know who have visited. Chub numbers are low and unless I'm uninformed JV wasn't poisoned including locals in the area per sources are enjoying JV and the fishing opportunities along with trophy potential.
Sit back relax and your good ole glory days of just me and my trout and only trout well its now be diverse here in Utah and more folks are enjoying the diversity options for angling without killing a body of water off just to have the the same thing happen.
Guess Einstien theory of keep doing the same thing expecting different results is what the naysayers hold true. But guess what, doing the same thing only results in the same outcome.
As I stated give it a chance and stop lambasting the DWR fishery division until you can say hate to say I told you so but see I told you so on Scofield...my data point is with JV right now and other bodies of water where there are current management plans in place (showing positive results) that are holding off on the poision. My .02
[signature]
Posts: 33,355
Threads: 418
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
33
I could not agree with you more on this issue and I think the lack of people fishing JV
is more about how far it is from Wasatch front, that it is about people not wanting to fish it, as another member said. We of course will see what happens at Scofield but from the reports that we were getting last year and the reports we are seeing this year, there is already a difference.
[signature]
Posts: 1,342
Threads: 14
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation:
2
Agreed JV is a hike and we have members fishing it. They enjoy it and the peace an quiet not being terrorized by lake lice (wave runners) and huge wake board boats. Some nice fish being caught but it is a drive. I know folks who drive and fish it. 6 hour round trip. Issue is diversity and letting management plans pan out. Honestly for TM pressure needs to be taken off PV with bodies of water being stocked with TM and other species closer to SLC metro area. I believe the DNR fisherery division is seeing that with proactive involved Anglers. Get involved and be respectful is our Chapter motto lambasting DNR divisions serves no useful or meaningful purpose.
Diversity and let’s see how management plans work and move forward out of the wagon wheel rut some naysayers have. Let’s see and get involved in a positive way that’s respectful
[signature]
Posts: 1,342
Threads: 14
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation:
2
Just for S&Gs here’s a past trip video on JV
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xBRY7U9lqKI
A great Fishery with nice fish and low rec boater traffic peaceful and quiet.
Oh one nasty word said in video but not a real nasty word
[signature]
Posts: 1,342
Threads: 14
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation:
2
Finally on comments regarding Johnson, Bullock, Cottonwood plus Fish Lake not stocked with TM but they migrate in from Johnson proactive Anglers are involved with DNR warm water contacts on these bodies of waters for future evaluation. So anyone interested knows these mentioned bodies of water have no management plans that I’m currently aware of.
[signature]
Posts: 3,084
Threads: 21
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
12
k2 / Wiper -- I don't know if you guys just don't read, or what...
...but I don't think anyone is complaining about stocking tm's in Scofield. I think it's just the opposite. We are all for the tiger musky. In fact, I'm all for the wipers too! The only issue with wipers is the elevation issue - which the DWR is also very well aware of.
Nobody on this thread, or any other thread, is asking for Scofield to be managed as a trout fishery. I don't get where you guys keep getting that info. It has been said numerous times in this thread alone that we are for other species. I don't think Scofield needs to be managed as a "put and take" rainbow trout fishery. It shouldn't be.
What I, and many others, don't get is this: Why do you guys want to wait?
Would you rather catch big musky in 2 years or would you rather wait 5-7?
Would you rather catch big wipers in 2 years or would you rather wait 5-7?
Would you rather catch 20" trout in 2 years or would you rather wait 8-10?
Would you rather be catching 12" catchable stocked cutthroat today or 18" cutthroat in 2 years, 20" rainbows, 35"+ tm, and 20" wipers in 2 years?
Keep in mind: year number 1 is already past. (actually, it's more like year 20)
You guys baffle me.
[:/]
[signature]
Posts: 15,520
Threads: 1,314
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
12
[quote k2muskie]
Guess Einstien theory of keep doing the same thing expecting different results is what the naysayers hold true. But guess what, doing the same thing only results in the same outcome.
[/quote]
Please show me where we want the same thing done again at Scofield. The same thing would be to poison Scofield and plant rainbows (and nothing else) and then give it 7 to 9 years before the chubs overrun it again. I don't know any knowledgeable/educated angler who is proposing this. What we would have preferred was to poison Scofield and restock it with rainbows (many anglers prefer rainbows because they are easy to catch and taste good to them) cutthroat, tiger trout and any other predators that they want to add to the mix (such as tiger muskies, wipers and sterile walleye) and install a strict slot limit (this has never been done at Scofield immediately after poisoning). By using this management plan the water would have recovered immediately instead of several more years and all of the fish would be growing quickly without the chubs eating so much of the limited available food.
This also would have brought back the anglers immediately. When I fished it from sunrise to about 3 PM, I saw one other boat fishing for a couple hours and there were four children that arrived as we were leaving and were setting up to fish from the shore. There were no other anglers on a reservoir that used to be second in popularity only to Strawberry Reservoir!
I also have another question (actually it is two questions) for you and wiperhunter2. How many times have you fished Scofield and when was the last time you fished Scofield? I have a hunch the answer from both of you is "zero" to the first part of the question, so the second part of the question doesn't apply. I first fished Scofield when I was around 4 or 5 years old (about 1955) and I have fished it at least 50 times (probably many more) and the last time was on 7/31/18.
[signature]
Posts: 1,342
Threads: 14
Joined: Oct 2007
Reputation:
2
Great input and here's my responses to recent posts.
Have I fished Scofield, NO I don't fish for trout and have no desire to fish for them. Anyone really can catch a trout as I see it.
Now per the management plan with other species yes we will make the drive/fish/camp.
The biggest issue as I firmly see it for some is poison is the only way. But that costs dolla, dolla as I stated earlier plus permits. Lets let the plans pan out and go from there.
JV as an example and per seeing input on other social media sites Scofield including BFT is seeing a positive for fishing. Why who knows but folks are now having fun fishing Scofield. Maybe you're not so be it you want instant gratification with poison so be it. Poison cost $$$,$$$,$$$ plus. Where do yo thing the money comes from. DNR fisheries division has a limited budget. You want the DNR to jack up fishing license's for a body of water so you can see it poisoned. You'll bitch about that with an increase in license fees I'm sure.
TM can grow anywhere from 6-12" in one year so for TM at Scofield it would be a good 4 years for a TM to get to the size that one can harvest per the states daily bag limit that being 40". TM will grow slow in cooler deeper waters but they will get huge and trust us a 40" TM is a nice fish but no were near the size they can get if released.
Per others reply to this only a few are really concerned about the flavor of the day and to be blunt that's trout, trout, trout and all wiz bang types of trout.
The state is working to diversify so what is wrong with that? Nothing as I see it plus per our trips to other state waters we are seeing a lot of positive and it isn't just from folks who toss power bait from shore. My .02 again but I'm sure will fall on deaf ears with those who only see poison as the answer but don't see poison costs a whole lot of money.
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.
[signature]
|
