Posts: 5,856
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
I've been wondering if the fish trap up at Strawberry is used for harvesting eggs from the cutts, or is it used only for kokes? I was also wondering if any of the biologists know or suspect what the natural reproduction/survival of the cutts in the berry is? I think (I know, a bad habit) I recall that back when it was poisoned, they had hoped that the fish could naturally keep up with the demands of the lake, this has not appeared to have happened, as they still plant a lot of fish in there. Any thoughts?
[signature]
Posts: 3,088
Threads: 22
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
13
Utah Dave could give you a better answer than me...
...or, you could get with Roger Wilson (DWR -- Strawberry Res project manager). He'd give you more info than you ever wanted...
[signature]
Posts: 389
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation:
0
Last June I stopped by the egg gathering facility at Strawberry Visitors center. There were some cutts in the pens. The interpretive signs around the facility talk about harvesting cutthroat eggs as well as the Kokes. If I remember correctly, I think the fry are raised in hatcheries and then returned to Strawberry and other waters. There was a sign that showed a picture of the largest cutt that had visited the traps. The best I can recall it was about 17 lbs.
[signature]
Posts: 5,856
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
Thanks for the info. I'd sure love to pull a 17lb cutt through the ice!
[signature]
Posts: 41
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
0
Kb... It really depends on the year. this year the only eggs they took were from the fish they used for disease testing. They raised those in an incubator in the egg taking station. From the information I got from Roger is that they had all the eggs they needed out of the broodstock at Mantua.
They continued to operate the trap for a couple of reasons: 1)they still weigh and catalog each of the fish coming through the trap; 2) they were not 100% sure that they wouldn't need eggs; 3) they were trying to block the upstream migration of chubs and suckers; 4) they removed as many suckers as possible between the reservoir and the trap.
I have yet to find #'s of fry produced in each stream. What we do know for sure is that Indian Creek and trout creek have the best spawning habitat. The strawberry is ok in the restored areas around the trap, but it is virtually devoid of successfully spawning fish from just above the trap to jsut below us 40. Above US 40 good reproduction does occur. Up until this year small stream reprodcution has been hampered by the drought. This year it appears the small streams produced well. For instance, I was told by Alan Ward that he counted 150 fish in Chicken Creek alone.
I heard recently that they figure kokanee are around 40% (i'll try to verify with roger) It varies from yeart to year (I know a few years ago it was near 40%), but the numbers I keep hearing are wild cutthroats account for 10-20% of the fish in the lake. These last #'s are not verfied so give me awhile to get the real #'s from Roger or alan.
[signature]
Posts: 3,336
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
Reputation:
0
Thank you UtahDaveII,
That is good information and I appreciate the time you took and your input. This is something in which I am interested as well. I will look forward to the rest of the info you've mentioned.
[signature]
Posts: 18
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
0
This is from the tmdl study for Strawberry Reservoir.
the goal:
"produce 10 million cutthroat trout young -of-the-year from Strawberry Valley Tributaries."
The reality:
"In 1997, Bear Lake cutthroat spawning was the largest observed since the 1990 treatment and extended well into many of the upper stream reaches. Naturally recruited cutthroat trout represented an equal or greater portion of the juvenile population that stocked fish and is expected to improve. However the management objective for young of the year (YOY) cutthroat trout has not been achieved. The 1997 projection of cutthroat YOY (valley wide was 1 to 2 million, 10-20% of the established objectives."
[signature]
Posts: 2,514
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
Good info. Thank you for sharing.
[signature]
Posts: 5,856
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
Thank you guys for all of the great information. It is interesting to see that the natural reproduction is quite a bit lower than the goal. I wonder if it is due to drought, spawning beds, riparian conditions, or a combination? Do you know if the DWR has any plans for creek improvements or riparian protection? I'd be interested and willing to help out if they are going to do any of this. Once again thanks for the helpful info.
[signature]
Posts: 41
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
0
I think your right on all accounts the drought has certainly hurt production in streams like coop creek, chicken creek, mud creek, clyde creek, Bryant's fork, trail hollow, squaw creek, etc.
habitat Degradation: Is certainly a problem on most streams in the valley. Most of the damage has been stopped, but these streams took 80 years of abuse and they do not heal overnight.
The biggest problem is on the Strawberry River. There are four miles of review with some pretty marginal habitat. What has happened is the channel has down cut and the river flows through cobble. This section of stream could produce a lot of fry and really help the reservoir out.
Restoration: A small section of river around the trap was worked on this year. It had also had some previous work on it. About 2 miles of Indian creek was fenced this year. Money from the project came from the Forest service, habitat fund, blue ribbon committee, Stonefly Society, TU and SAA (If I missed anybody, I apologize). It was $100,000 plus project. In 2006 they will move a road that is dumping sediment to this stream.
This last year they have been doing some major diet studies on the lake, so they have not put a lot of thought into next years projects. Since NEPA takes about a year, they will probably look at some restoration on the Strawberry River. There has been some talk about using some mitigation money to restore some of this river. Nothing is even remotely final yet, but this section of stream needs to be improved.
[signature]
