Posts: 938
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2007
Reputation:
0
I agree with you that Strawberry is not as fertile as Henrys, nor is it even close. I am just comparing the draw of hybrids and brookies has really helped that lake. I too don't know exactly what would happen if these species were added. But in my experience with other lakes and these species, the introduction of tigers and maybe browns and brookies seem to have a huge upside and hardly any downside.
Tigers and bows are planted as put and take for the most part so replace half the bows that are planted with tigers. Browns would stay deeper most of the year and brookies are just flat out beautiful and would stay in the moss beds. If one species wasn't fishing well one day, you could go after another. I know that I would fish more often and more at Strawberry if this were the case.
[signature]
Posts: 409
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation:
0
Yeah, each person obviously has their preferences. As the old saying goes: To each their own.
If they asked me for my opinion, I'd tell them that I believed Strawberry to be one of the state's success stories in management fraught with failures. I'd like to let it ride out and continue to see what it has to offer that is unique from all the other waters in the state. But that's just my opinion, everyone else is certainly entitled to theirs.
[signature]
Posts: 807
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation:
0
Put Kamloops in SCOFIELD!!!!!! [  ]
[signature]
Posts: 19,235
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
1
Actually, Strawberry and Henry's are very similar in some ways. Just different food, but both have an abundance. Growth rate for another.
Everet14 has a write up by Biologist from both lakes (Alan & Damon)
TD I was referring to the Lakers eating all the food starving out the other species.
I will be interested in how the Kamloops co exist.
[signature]
Posts: 938
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2007
Reputation:
0
They do seem to grow faster in Henrys and Strawberry is so much deeper. But they both produce very nice fish. I believe what Strawberry lacks in freshwater shrimp they make up for with the slot and chubs.
I think Scofield is about to see an explosion of huge fish over the 24 months. There is so much small chub in there and 2 years for the slot to work. I am so glad that they put tigers and cutts in there. Maybe the browns in Scofield will also do well.
[signature]
Posts: 35,995
Threads: 294
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
57
[quote pookiebar]Put Kamloops in SCOFIELD!!!!!! [ ][/quote]
[cool] [#0000ff]Or smallies...or tiger muskies.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]But sorry, not up to me. Not my yob.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 815
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation:
0
A lot of good conversation here. I agree a lot of whats been said. Sounds like we need to start planting chubs...seriously.... in a lot of lakes. I see scofield producing some MONSTERS until the chubs are thinned back.
[signature]
Posts: 35,995
Threads: 294
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
57
"TD I was referring to the Lakers eating all the food starving out the other species.
I will be interested in how the Kamloops co exist."
[cool][#0000ff]I am sure that the DWR biologists will be closely monitoring the situation too...along with a lot of opinionated fishermen. No matter what happens somebody will want to blame somebody for whatever goes wrong and assume none of the responsibility if their ideas don't work.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]I always like to watch from the outside and see what interesting turns the experiments take. As the famous line from "Jurassic Park" goes..."Nature will find a way." We are often surprised by how well a new species will adapt to a previously foreign environment...and how existing species will adapt to the new introduction.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]A good example is the burbot. When they first showed up everybody was tearing out their hair and crying DISASTER. A few years later we are still concerned but we have not seen any species crashes. And, in spite of verifiable predation by burbot upon spawning kokanee and macks, there are still fish to catch. As I understand it, the kokes have taken a hit to their numbers, through nest raiding...but the macks seem to be eating almost as many small burbots as the burbots are eating small macks. And the macks need some thinning in their smaller sizes.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Those who favor the other species are still screaming like wounded eagles whenever the subject of burbot comes up, but they have to accept there is nothing they can do about it. They are here to stay and they will establish their own niche in the ecology. [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]I am sure that will be the case with the kamloops. They will move into their own level in the food chain and they will do fine. They will grow to a size allowed by the available food supply and they will provide a fishery of their own. Some folks will target them and learn their wily ways...and will do very well at fishing for them. Others will catch a few by accident, but most will not know the difference between them and the existing rainbow population.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]And thus it always goes.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 19,235
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
1
Hope you are right sir, because Mantua was a bust for sure....still wonder...where did they all go? [laugh][laugh][laugh]
[signature]
Posts: 2,727
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
0
Stocking Mantua was a joke. Is anybody surprised that didn't work. Don't need to be a fisheries biologist to realize an low elevation reservoir with average depth of 14 ft and max depth of 20 ft wasn't anything but burning money when they attempted to stock Kamloops. Kamloops evolved in cold deep clear lakes of glacial origin feeding on Kokes. Why someone thought Mantua was appropriate habitat is mindblowing to me. Hope they instituted drug testing at DWR after that fiasco.
[signature]
Posts: 19,235
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
1
They survive in a couple of Lakes I fish that have no Koke and get pretty toasty.
I agree with the shallowness, but it was a record breaking Hot spell with no break the year they did this. Any other year could have been a different outcome (like this year that went from spring to a couple weeks summer, fall, couple more summer, fall and today....winter...LOL)
[signature]
Posts: 938
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2007
Reputation:
0
Tiger Muskie is one fish that I would be more than happy if they put them in half the lakes in Utah, including Scofield. No, not in the numbers in Pineview, but a few thousand muskie in Scofield would sure add some variety and be awesome.
But I still think Deer Creek and Jordanelle are perfect lakes for musky. With all the small smallies in DC and the chubs in the nelle, musky would add a nice balance. But being part of the Provo river drainage, I doubt we will ever see Musky in those lakes.
[signature]
Posts: 35,995
Threads: 294
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
57
[cool][#0000ff]Riverdog pretty much summed it up. Bad idea in the first place. While the kamloops seemed to survive for a brief period they likely succumbed to the first low water summer when shallow waters, high water temps and thick weeds did them in. [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Mantua gets cold in the winter but it is a warm, weedy shallow pond in the summer. Doesn't even come close to providing the kind of habitat that kamloops call home in their native environment.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]But, as silly as that experiment was, it still ranks somewhere behind the attempt to introduce chinook salmon into Utah Lake. Can't verify the statistics on that one but I have heard of it from several sources.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 35,995
Threads: 294
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
57
"But I still think Deer Creek and Jordanelle are perfect lakes for musky. With all the small smallies in DC and the chubs in the nelle, musky would add a nice balance. But being part of the Provo river drainage, I doubt we will ever see Musky in those lakes."
[cool][#0000ff]I agree that a sprinkling of tigers might help curb the abundance of small finny eating machines...and provide more space and food for larger ones. I also agree that it is not likely that is going to happen. But, NEVER SAY "NEVER". Now that Utah has the rearing facilities for producing our own tiger muskies they might just show up in a few more places. Since they are sterile they can be easily controlled...while they are helping control other problems. If the experiment wasn't working, and DWR wanted them out, all they gotta do is remove the slot restrictions...or make it mandatory keep and kill. Otherwise, illegal keeping and natural attrition would whittle down a small population pretty fast anyway.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 2,993
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation:
0
Hmmmm, I could be slightly off base but as I see it, the best way to handle what will or will not survive if combined is to toss everything into the ponds, including the kitchen sink, and then sit back and let mother nature sort it out. But wow, what a show it could be.. Heck, even I'd pay good money to watch that showNtell..
Talk about a money maker,, Weeedoggies!!..[  ][ ]
[signature]
Posts: 19,235
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
1
We will never know. The lakes at the lodge share all the attributes of Mantua and they are still there getting bigger every day. Add to that the hook and release on a regular basis.
There had to be a reason we as non biologist just don't know. Of course there was the late Doug Miller effect as well,
I for one can't say bad idea, just bad timing.[cool]
[signature]
Posts: 409
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation:
0
In one post I'm hearing "nature will find a way" and how great species adapt to unnatural environs and then in the next I'm hearing that Mantua didn't work because it's not like the Kamloops natural environment.
Also, I have to whole-heartedly disagree with the fact that native species find a way to adapt well to introduced species. We literally have dozens, if not hundreds of examples of this being proved wrong in Utah alone. Anyone ever heard of Utah Lake and carp? Why has there been a huge need to RE-introduce cutthroats to native drainages in Utah? I will say that many NON-native species do well and adapt to other NON-native species being introduced. But we've seen time and time again how negative of an impact introducing random species has on the natives.
I do believe the state will expand the tiger muskie program with their new facilities. They are currently in 6 lakes that I'm aware of. I'm sure that will increase as time goes on. I'd love to see them in Deer Creek and Jordanelle.
[signature]
Posts: 35,995
Threads: 294
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
57
[cool][#0000ff]Probably the single greatest argument against wholesale random introductions of new species is that we can never REALLY know what the final outcome WILL be. Some species CAN adapt...and others can't. And sometimes the replacements turn out to be worse than the longtime residents. And even though we can usually predict at least a short-term effect there is no way to project the long-term effects of altering the fishy ecosystem. Carp are a good example. But in those days their game plans were not subject to good biology...just politics and hope.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Just a wild guess but that might be a good part of the reason why DWR prefers to take it slow and do extensive studies before just dumping in a bunch of new species and saying "Let's see how that works out."[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Seems like no matter what water or species we discuss on the boards there are those who oppose whatever DWR is doing...or wants to do. Much better to have a job as a weather forecaster where you can keep your job even when you are wrong a lot. Wouldn't wanna be a DWR employee. No matter what they decide they are ALWAYS wrong to somebody.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Just for the record. I do not disagree with most DWR policies (well, maybe a few). And I NEVER advocate dumping in any new species until they have finished all the studies and certifications and given the green light. It is great to be an "armchair" biologist and to keep second guessing their past decisions...or bitching about their apparent lack of interest in improving existing fisheries. But I applaud them for the fisheries they have established and maintained IN SPITE of all the inherent problems of running the Division in a state that has no water stability and such a wide variety of species and waters to oversee.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 3,826
Threads: 8
Joined: Feb 2003
Reputation:
0
I agree with what you said some of the things the DWR does is just mind boggling.Like putting tiger trout in yuba ! [crazy] Well at least they fed the perch good for a while.
[signature]
Posts: 19,235
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
1
[quote TS30]In one post I'm hearing "nature will find a way" and how great species adapt to unnatural environs and then in the next I'm hearing that Mantua didn't work because it's not like the Kamloops natural environment.
Also, I have to whole-heartedly disagree with the fact that native species find a way to adapt well to introduced species. We literally have dozens, if not hundreds of examples of this being proved wrong in Utah alone. Anyone ever heard of Utah Lake and carp? Why has there been a huge need to RE-introduce cutthroats to native drainages in Utah? I will say that many NON-native species do well and adapt to other NON-native species being introduced. But we've seen time and time again how negative of an impact introducing random species has on the natives.
I do believe the state will expand the tiger muskie program with their new facilities. They are currently in 6 lakes that I'm aware of. I'm sure that will increase as time goes on. I'd love to see them in Deer Creek and Jordanelle.[/quote]
Speaking of adapting and my love for Kams, they physically changed as well. They use to have allot more rows of scales, and fewer gill rakers.
Adapt they did.
[signature]
|
