I may have missed getting the information on any changes to the direction the DWR was going with Scofield. After they did their big push for public opinion. But all I can see on the stocking reports are more Cutthroat being stocked. Can I assume that if they are still stocking with Cutthroats that they are not planning a poisoning or change of what preditors are going to be introduced?
[signature]
Very
situation. I drove by Scofield on Friday - Not a boat in sight.
Totally mismanaged fishery.
[signature]
The draft management plan is being reviewed but the majority of the committee that helped put the plan together did not want to poison it. Instead the DWR will stock sterile walleye, wiper, and some tiger muskie to try and gain some control over the chubs. They are also going to start stocking catchable rainbows so folks have a chance at taking home some fish to eat instead of for bait.[
]
I hope it works but it's going to take some more time and nowadays folks don't have much patience. It is really
when you drive by and there is hardly anyone fishing. It used to be the number two trout fishery in the state.[:/]
[signature]
Thats an awesome idea, true it will take some time but there is little doubt those walleye and wipers will get those chubs under control, I just wish they had done this years ago. Back in the day, chubs were in control at Starvation too but those eyes took care of them over time.
[signature]
Thanks for the update. Hopefully they will start this year.
[signature]
[quote wiperhunter2]Thats an awesome idea, true it will take some time but there is little doubt those walleye and wipers will get those chubs under control, [/quote]
Really?
I have doubt.
If you don't poison it now, you are just prolonging the misery of that fishery. It is crazy to not poison it.
What other fisheries do we have wipers at the same elevation as Scofield?
The only example I can think of off the top of my head is Mill Meadow Reservoir. When wipers were attempted in that reservoir, they failed. Condition factors on those wipers were very poor. They simply couldn't make it at that elevation.
It makes you wonder if wipers will work in Scofield or not.
Time will tell.
[signature]
I agree with PBH. Poison that P.O.S!
[signature]
[quote gofish435]
The draft management plan is being reviewed but the majority of the committee that helped put the plan together did not want to poison it. Instead the DWR will stock sterile walleye, wiper, and some tiger muskie to try and gain some control over the chubs.
[/quote]
Why did they pretend to want our input, by giving us a survey to complete? If their minds were already made up they should have just gone forward with their plans and not put out that survey.
Scofield was a great place to fish once upon a time. I hope I live long enough to experience its recovery, but at the rate is going I have my doubts.
[signature]
Simply enjoy catching Walleye and Wiper year after year as they slowly eliminate the chubs. Slower the better!!
[signature]
Kent, the surveys usually result in several options that the DWR uses to suggest within the committee. The committees are usually formed from anglers who participated in the survey and offered to be a part of the committee. I am sure that nothing was planned until after the committee had met and discussed options. It sure appears as if anglers--the committee--are the ones making the plan moving forward at Schofield.
I don't like it and others will surely not as well. But, it was formed by the public with the assistance of the DWR.
[signature]
Weren't there plans in the works to rotenone Scofield?
As for if the wipers, walleye, etc will work, they may, but it could take 15-20 years in a good scenario. (Just like at Starvation as Wiperguy loves to bring up) Or it could take a year and a half, with rotenone, and be fairly certain, if followed by the proper regs.
I know which way I would go.
[signature]
[quote Dog-lover]Simply enjoy catching Walleye and Wiper year after year as they slowly eliminate the chubs. Slower the better!![/quote]
Are you sure?
Where is the evidence that this will work? Again, show me an example where wipers have been successfull at over 7000ft elevation. The only documentation we have shows that wipers could not cut it at that elevation.
As for walleye -- I'm not sold. But, why not rotenone it, then immediately stock with sterile walleye following the treatment? You wouldn't lose out on any fishing at all! The way it is now, we're already missing out on fishing, and will for the foreseeable future.
[signature]
I understand your feelings about the plan.
There were a few trophy fishermen on the committee that didn't want to kill the few large cutthroats in there and it seems recently that the general public is against using rotenone for some unsubstantiated reason.
I certainly believe going into the committee meeting that the DWR was expecting to go forward with a treatment.[:/]
Regardless, it's going to take years, like you said, I hope I live that long, to see improvement.
[signature]
[quote wormandbobber]
Kent, the surveys usually result in several options that the DWR uses to suggest within the committee. The committees are usually formed from anglers who participated in the survey and offered to be a part of the committee. I am sure that nothing was planned until after the committee had met and discussed options. It sure appears as if anglers--the committee--are the ones making the plan moving forward at Schofield.
[/quote]
You are probably correct, but I still believe the survey was a waste of time for me and many others to complete. I read the survey results, and as expected, their were opinions all over the board and there was a large group that wanted it treated ASAP. Had the UDWR acted earlier and fixed the situation many years ago we wouldn't have the wasted fishery that we have today.
[signature]
[quote gofish435]
There were a few trophy fishermen on the committee that didn't want to kill the few large cutthroats in there...
[/quote]
Those few, and IMNSHO selfish "trophy fishermen" should learn how to catch them at Strawberry and have at it.
[quote gofish435]
Regardless, it's going to take years, like you said, I hope I live that long, to see improvement.
[/quote]
It will also take years to determine if it is working at all and if PBH is right, and it appears he has the science to support his doubts that it will work, in 5-10 years it will still be a underutilized fishery with a few anglers chasing the few remaining trophy cutthroats.
I have personally experienced how quickly rotenone can turn Scofield into a quality fishery. I have fished it on opening day, after it was briefly closed after being treated with rotenone, and the quantity and quality of fish was excellent. It should be treated with rotenone and planted with a mixture of fish that can manage the chubs, carp, suckers and similar going forward.
Thank goodness they didn't have a committee that wanted to save "the few large cutthroats" remaining in Strawberry or it would still be another Scofield.
[signature]
It is also worth pointing out that the survey concluded that a majority of respondents favored rotenone and only a vocal minority, about 25% ,were opposed. Also, all possible options were presented there, and in such a way that you did need to respond to questions about warmwater species separately from rotenone questions. so saying it was only a factfinding effort was not quite accurate either.
Sounds like those in charge already had their mind made up. Now they can live with the results. At least they won't be crowded when they fish there.
[signature]
Have you or the others on this thread that want the DWR to poison Scofield ever read the definition of Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Well that alone is a good reason to try something different. Look at how long it took the wipers to get the problem at New castle under control, seems to me that even if the wipers alone can't get the job done, the combination of
sterile walleye, wiper, and tiger muskie will get it done and the lake will be producing some nice fish in much less than 10-20 years. True, it will be longer for the trout to come back but I still think it will be less than 10 years before you see that lake turn the corner and start producing trophy trout again. The facts are that no one can predict the out come of this experiment, just because there are no examples that we can look at, that will show us that it will be a success, doesn't mean that it won't work. Every time the DWR try's something new, there is always a chance that it won't work but going back and doing the same thing, time and time again, is Insanity, IMO.
By the way, are any of us biologist that are responding on this thread? I think we all can agree that we hope Scofield will return to the days of old. The way the world is going today, we might have seen the last of the DWR poisoning those bigger lakes because of environmental concerns.[:/]
[signature]
[quote wiperhunter2]Have you or the others on this thread that want the DWR to poison Scofield ever read the definition of Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.[/quote]
?
using rotenone produces the EXACT results desired: a clean slate. How is that insane?
Now, whether or not the management plan after a treatment was sound or not might be in question. However, many management plans included rotenone in the plan to "reset" a lake after a specified number of years (ie: Johnson Reservoir). That is not insane, and that is not expecting "different" result.
[quote wiperhunter2] Well that alone is a good reason to try something different. Look at how long it took the wipers to get the problem at New castle under control, seems to me that even if the wipers alone can't get the job done[/quote]
What?
New Castle took some time - yes. But much of that was due to the availability of wipers at that time. The state couldn't hardly get any.
A better example would be Minersville. How many years did it take for those wipers to nearly eliminate chubs? Not many. They have been an extremely useful tool. But, keep in mind, wipers were introduced prior to those chubs taking over the fishery -- which is very important. Attempting to stock over the top of an already firmly established chub population may not work.
Again -- the issue of Scofield's elevation has not been succesful when attempting wipers. Wipers may not work, even without the chubs. Scofield might just be too high in elevation for wipers to thrive.
[quote wiperhunter2] , the combination of
sterile walleye, wiper, and tiger muskie will get it done and the lake will be producing some nice fish in much less than 10-20 years. True, it will be longer for the trout to come back but I still think it will be less than 10 years before you see that lake turn the corner and start producing trophy trout again. [/quote]
how many is "less than 10"?
With rotenone you could have a fishery established immediately after a treamtment! You could have 18" trout in 2 years!
You could have catchable trout immediately after a treatment. You'd have whatever walleye, wiper and tiger musky immediately after a treatment as well. You could have a fishery virtually the next day after a treatment!
Why wait 10 years? Why wait 5?
[quote wiperhunter2] The facts are that no one can predict the out come of this experiment, just because there are no examples that we can look at, that will show us that it will be a success, doesn't mean that it won't work.[/quote]
100% agree with this.
However, we do know what the outcome would be if rotenone were used to poison the lake. Chub populations would be nearly eliminated. Then you stock with the fish mentioned above immediately afterward to establish that predator base, and end up with another viable fishery. We know this because it has been done numerous other times in the past in numerous other states all across the West. This is proven!
Why go with the unproven, risky experiment when you have a time-tested solution that will work? You want to define insanity? There it is ^^ .
[quote wiperhunter2]
By the way, are any of us biologist that are responding on this thread? [/quote]
no. But I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night.
(I might not be a biologist, but I don't need to be on this particular issue. I have enough knowledge on this subject to understand these issues. Thanks.)
[quote wiperhunter2] we might have seen the last of the DWR poisoning those bigger lakes because of environmental concerns.[:/][/quote]
What environmental issues? name them.
(that's called "ignorance")
[signature]
[quote wiperhunter2]
Have you or the others on this thread that want the DWR to poison Scofield ever read the definition of Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Well that alone is a good reason to try something different.
[/quote]
Getting 20 years of great fishing works for me. I am also not proposing that they do the same thing that they have repeatedly done in the past. Previously, they have poisoned it and only planted rainbows. I propose that they poison it and plant a variety of fish that have proven they can control the chubs (combined with a workable slot law from day one). If they want to try a few others such as wipers and sterile walleye in the mix, fine go ahead and add them after poisoning the lake first to get control of the massive number of chubs.
[signature]
I guess since you responded to my post, I should reply, although PBH pretty much covered most aspects.
[quote wiperhunter2] Look at how long it took the wipers to get the problem at New castle under control, seems to me that even if the wipers alone can't get the job done, the combination of
sterile walleye, wiper, and tiger muskie will get it done and the lake will be producing some nice fish in much less than 10-20 years. [/quote]
Newcastle was infested with golden shiners. The maximum age of golden shiners is 8 years and the more normal lifespan, 3-6 years.
http://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Note..._longevity
The maximum lifespan of Utah chubs is more than twice that, according to the DWR. If you are basing your rosy assessment of Scofield on what happened at Newcastle, it is absolutely apples and oranges.
[quote wiperhunter2] Every time the DWR try's something new, there is always a chance that it won't work but going back and doing the same thing, time and time again, is Insanity, IMO. [/quote]
The track record with poisoning plus slot limits is exceptional. Strawberry and Panguitch are 2 of the best fisheries in the state. Have you seen the tiger trout coming out of Panguitch this year? The size Scofield used to have. [:/] This line, when pulled on this issue is simply erroneous.
[quote wiperhunter2] By the way, are any of us biologist that are responding on this thread? [/quote]
Class of 89, University of Utah, Magna cum laude. Thanks for asking.
[signature]