05-01-2012, 06:57 PM
|
plant tiger trout in the berry
|
05-01-2012, 06:59 PM
let just put it out there and see how many want to do this
[signature] 
05-01-2012, 07:37 PM
I only fish there every few years and really could care less if they are there or not.
The closest that I would come to having an opinion would be if that it helps the over all health of the lake then I could see it. It's not that I have anything against trout but I have caught enough of them when I was younger and there are still plenty of other fish that I would like to catch. [signature]
Live to hunt----- Hunt to live.
05-01-2012, 07:41 PM
Just some questions that came to mind considering the request for tiger trout in the Berry. (these questions are not "right" or "wrong", just simply questions)
Q1: Why? What would be the goal of using tiger trout in Strawberry? A: additional sportfish opportunity? additional chub control (are the cutts not working)? Q2: Where? Where would the additional tiger trout necessary to stock Strawberry come from? Could our fish hatcheries supply enough tiger trout to adequately stock them in Strawberry Q3: Would other lakes lose out on tiger trout in order to come up with enough to stock in Strawberry? Q4: What negative impacts could tiger trout have on the current population of cutthroat and kokanee? Q5: why mess with success?? Strawberry has enjoyed a period of around 10 years under the current management plan, which is truly amazing for a trout fishery with chubs. 10 years!! Without doubt, the current management plan for Strawberry has been a HUGE success. So, why try to change that now? What possible negative impacts could happen? Maybe none. Just something to consider Q6: are surplus tiger trout currently dumped in Strawberry? Is there any return to creel (do anglers currently catch those that are stocked?). One concern could be that those fish stocked may never show up on an anglers line. Tiger trout can play magician, and perform a disappearing act when stocked in larger reservoirs (Otter Creek, Piute, Minersville, Panguitch Lake, etc...). So, is there a real return-to-creel benefit? Just some questions. my personal opinion is that we have tiger trout in enough waters, and don't see the need to stock them in the Berry. Just my opinion. [signature]
05-01-2012, 08:07 PM
As always, well said PBH.
Do we need Tiger Trout in Strawberry? No. I would rather see Rainbows. JMO. [signature]
05-01-2012, 08:58 PM
rainbows, rainbows, and more rainbows!!!! wish that would turn into a trophy bow place. they're getting bigger but taking awhile. those cutts are worthless but there is always a chance of a giant one that will put up a decent fight. I know I know, people say if ya don't like cutts than don't fish there. I only fish it on the hard deck now cause nothing really fights through the ice anyways.
[signature]
05-01-2012, 11:46 PM
No tigers! I just love those hard fighting cutts[unimpressed] There a lot more fun than a big chunk of moss! I say everything but the cutts ][signature]
05-02-2012, 12:37 AM
Like said before WHY???
If you do away with the chubs you do away with the bigger fish... Small fish need food (chubs) to grow... No to change... [signature] 
05-02-2012, 01:48 AM
I don't have a problem fishing for the tigers, just not in the Berry.
[signature]
05-02-2012, 01:51 AM
Can you post just one time, something that doesn't make sense?
No to tigers. I'd like the DWR to think about the Gerrard strain of Kamloops 'bows. Real fish, not "Frankenfish" Those that have caught the 'bows I'm referring to, know what a fish with shoulders is and how fast they grow. Idaho has it right, Utah, time to take notice (although the DWR has done an outstanding job with Strawberry.) [signature]
05-02-2012, 02:18 AM
WHY?
Here are a few of my thoughts. Diversity. Have you ever fished Henry's? It is awesome to be able to catch different species. Both bows and cutts tend to occupy the same areas and tend to stay more off-shore, weedbeds and sandy shoreline. Tigers stay shallow, get up in the rocks and attack. They are also fall spawners. While we are at it, I would love to see sterile brookies and browns thrown in the mix. Chub control - Tigers would attack chubs in a different way in different areas. Can't hurt. I don't think there would hardly be any predation of kokes by the tigers. Sport - I personally love tiger trout and would fish strawberry 3x as much as I do now if they were in there. They are aggressive, fight well, and are beautiful fish when they get big and during the spawn. Cost - Don't know. The rainbow fishing there has been sub-par for a while. I would say plant less but even bigger bows, lots and lots of small tigers, and lets throw in some sterile brookies for fun. All I know is that if this were done, angling hours would probably double. I just don't understand why we seem to be against diversity of species when the species in question are sterile and are great trash fish predators. I would love to see tiger muskie, tiger trout and sterile brookies put into waters all over the state instead of rainbows. My opinion is that most trophy/big fish fishermen feel this way while most meat hunters prefer bows. [signature]
05-02-2012, 02:35 AM
+1 jacksonman
20 people have signed it and only been on a few hours [signature]
05-02-2012, 02:37 AM
Henry's Hybrids are nice as are the Brookies, but there is basically just those three. Brookies can be far and few too. Over the past 10 years, you didn't really catch to many Brooks till a couple years ago. But I also remember making15 cast and landing 15 chub all over 16" at Henry's.
I vote for Kams too. Many they got pull power. But I have nothing against Tigers, like already said, not at Strawberry. [signature]
05-02-2012, 03:13 AM
i'm a huge fan of the idea of enhancing the rainbow trout fishery at strawberry. and like many of you, wonder how the Kamloops rainbows would do in there. why not? are they expensive to hatch and raise? how do they hold up against whirling disease?? how about a sterile Kamloops? being spring spawners, the sterilized rainbows are important according to the DWR.
unfortunately, until the rainbows are managed properly at strawberry we wont see these fish grow to their "true" potential. the bows in the berry are being managed as put-and-take, which is  .[:/] its amazing how fast they grow, and with a little size restriction the rainbows in that lake would be AMAZING.[ ] we have plenty of put and take fisheries in Utah. how about just a couple true trophy fisheries? The bows really are the most fun to catch at the berry, and the reason i go back.The cutthroats, as beautiful(and necesarry) as they are tend to be like dragging a stick off the bottom. Dont get me wrong, the cutts are the primary reason the fishery being as healthy as it is, but not as much fun to catch. not sure the tigers are needed, let the cutts do their job. they have been for what 15+ years now? The chubs seem to be in control, it's not by chance. long live the strawberry rainbow!! [signature]
05-02-2012, 06:18 AM
No to tigers yes to more regulations on all trophy waters
.. [signature]
05-02-2012, 12:09 PM
Strawberry is a success. Tweaking took place a few years ago on the slot size, which was very good.
Now possibly another tweak on slots, barbless hooks, number of hooks? Maybe even slot on rainbows. They can eat microbugs up to about 16 to 18 inches, because their gill rakers are spaced close enough to filter their food. So maybe nothing under 18 on rainbows. Let them grow big and fat. The real challenge is getting the fishing public on board. It took decades to change the attitude of full limits and ":I want to keep every fish". Many still hate the slot. F&G challenge has been to keep public happy yet have fish large enough and aggressive enough to keep chubs in check. They got a trophy lake as a side benefit. They are more about selling licenses. They choose Cuts and Rainbows. Easy to catch. They didn't choose Splake. They hadn't mastered Tigers at the time. But Cuts had history, they changed the type of Cut to fit the need. The recipe is working. Small tweaks, ok. Not tigers, because tigers may be better predators hence maybe a decline in Cuts. Also Cuts reproduce, some naturally, or at least we get the eggs and milt from those in the lake. Not so with tigers. I think it is a question for debate, not a real possibility. [signature]
05-02-2012, 05:18 PM
[quote Tangled_not] like many of you, wonder how the Kamloops rainbows would do in there. why not?[/quote]
[quote Tangled_not] unfortunately, until the rainbows are managed properly at strawberry we wont see these fish grow to their "true" potential. the bows in the berry are being managed as put-and-take, which is .[:/] its amazing how fast they grow, and with a little size restriction the rainbows in that lake would be AMAZING[/quote]You just answered your own question -- but didn't realize it. What is the bottleneck at Strawberry with rainbow trout size? Is it harvest? If that is the case, then introducing Kamloops (or Gerrards) would produce the same result you have with the current strain: rainbow trout being harvested before they can reach their true potential. How would strain change harvest rates? it wouldn't. So, you'd have the same size fish you have now. What would happen if rainbows were not managed as "put and take"? Well, whatever strain is currently being used may grow large, fast! Strain isn't the issue. Fix the bottleneck. So -- answer this question: what strain is currently being used? [quote mojorizing]Can you post just one time, something that doesn't make sense? [/quote] what? You mean like "plant more chubs"? Obviously, at least to most people, we know that planting more chubs does not make sense. [signature] |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)