Fishing Forum

Here is the local paper link on the scofield agenda.. See if it will work, I guess.. http://etv10news.com/three-new-fish-spec...reservoir/
[signature]

the best and funnest plan yet!! [fishon][fishon][fishon]
[signature]

[quote fuzzyfisher]the best and funnest plan yet!! [/quote]

Wait 5 years and poison? Sounds terrible to me.
[signature]

[cool][cool][cool] well lets at least give it a chance man.. this is the the Utah DWR that made this plane right?????? so how could it be so bad?
[signature]

[quote fuzzyfisher][cool][cool][cool] well lets at least give it a chance man.. [/quote]

Because 20 years hasn't been a good enough chance?
[signature]

did i miss the tiger musky,wiper, and walleye, in there the last 20 years?


sounds kind-a new to me and fun as well.. [sly][][][]
[signature]

[quote dubob][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3] One of the biggest grips I read on these and other Utah fishing forums is that the DWR doesn’t listen to the general public when making decisions about our fisheries. So in the fall of 2016, the DWR actually conducted an online survey that asked anglers what species they would like to pursue at Scofield and whether they would support another rotenone treatment. They got some 2,500 responses from anglers across Utah that revealed strong public support for introducing new species to the reservoir. [/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3] [/size][/#800000][/font][/quote]

That survey also showed majority support for a rotenone treatment, contrary to what the news release showed. You left that part out.
[signature]

I'll disagree. It could be done almost overnight. Rotenone. The UDWR was told by our own Toasty that he caught a Utah Chub at Scofield in 1997. 20 years ago. They've been experimenting since 2005 with predators. Now they want another 5 years, but they're going to have a back up plan to use rotenone if they can't get the chubs under control. It took 30 years at Starvation. I'm not convinced they could do it in any less time.

I like the idea of getting input from fishermen as well. But what good is it to ask someone who has never fished at Scofield, and has expressed the opinion that they probably never will fish at Scofield, what they want to see implemented at Scofield? You should get input from the same people who have, and who have expressed a desire to fish at Scofield when you're taking a survey about Scofield.

[quote dubob][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]I have never fished Scofield and probably never will, but that sounds like a good plan to me. Based on the successful wiper plant in East Canyon, that species should do well in Scofield as well. And the muskies should put a big dent in the chub population.
[/size][/#800000][/font][/quote]

One of the best fisheries in the state, in my opinion, is Minersville Reservoir. It has Small Mouth Bass, Wipers, Utah Chubs, Rainbow Trout, Cutthroat Trout, and Brown Trout. You almost never see any Cutthroats or Browns. They're there, and they plant them fairly often. The UDWR thought, and actually reported, that the Small Mouth Bass had brought the chubs under control. It took the Wipers to finally put the hurt on the chubs. But the conditions are so different than those at Scofield.

There are years that you can't ice fish at Minersville. Most years, it is from Christmas till Valentines Day. Scofield ices up about Thanksgiving and is covered until April or May.



[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF]
[signature]

[quote Fishrmn]But what good is it to ask someone who has never fished at Scofield, and has expressed the opinion that they probably never will fish at Scofield, what they want to see implemented at Scofield?

[quote dubob][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]I have never fished Scofield and probably never will, but that sounds like a good plan to me. Based on the successful wiper plant in East Canyon, that species should do well in Scofield as well. And the muskies should put a big dent in the chub population.
[/size][/#800000][/font][/quote][/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]Nobody ASKED me what I wanted to see implemented at Scofield - I didn't know about the survey and did not participate in it. Had I known about the survey before hand, I would not have participated in it because I have no interest in fishing at Scofield. However, that doesn't preclude me from having an opinion about it even if I don't plan on using it in the future. There are lots of lakes and streams in Utah that I will never fish. But I do buy a fishing license every year and since my license fees go to support ALL of DWR fisheries, I think that gives me a right to have and voice an opinion on ALL of them. I still think the new plan is sound and the DWR is on the right track. However, that is nothing more than an opinion. I respect your disagreement and your right to voice it. Just please don't tell me I can't have an opinion on something I have never used or intend to use in the future. I don't use welfare of any kind and expect I never will. That doesn't mean I don't have an opinion about welfare or the right to voice it. And again, no disrespect intended.[/#][/font]
[signature]

I do not like the idea of Rotenone. People think of it as this miracle fix to these types of problems. Look at the issue going on out at Red Fleet. Lots of mouths to feed and not much prey base to feed them because everything was killed. The walleye are pretty skinny looking. To kill all that prey in Scofield would be a waste in my opinion. And it takes years for the new stocked fish to reach a decent size after the treatment as well. Here is a link of to the results of the survey:

https://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/scofield_results_2016.pdf
[signature]

No disrespect intended or felt. I simply believe that the opinions of those who have fished, or who will fish a specific body of water should have more bearing on the outcome of the changes. I've never fished at Pineview. I've only fished at Willard Bay twice. I believe that my wants shouldn't weigh as heavily as someone who lives closer to, and fishes those bodies of water more often. I would like to see the percentages of fishermen who live in the three or four counties closest to Scofield who favored treating the reservoir with rotenone. And while there may have been a lot of folks who wanted a more diverse fishery, does voting for Peacock Bass mean that the UDWR should try to plant them? Or does that mean that they should just plant something other than the usual assortment of fish? I saw a lot of requests for Brown Trout (already in the drainage), Brook Trout, Northern Pike, Small Mouth Bass, Yellow Perch, etc. If they're not going to plant everything that was suggested then they're ignoring the desires of some of the people who responded to the survey. Did those people want anything other than Rainbow Trout? Or were their suggestions more specific? Or did the survey just lump them all together and say they want more diversity, and thereby giving precedence to the idea of putting something other than trout in Scofield?

Scofield has historically been the second most popular flat water fishery in the state. That's not just my opinion, that's what the UDWR has said for years. Will this new approach bring it back to its former position in the hearts of Utah anglers? Or will it please a few hundred people who want to fish for something other than trout?

I find it disingenuous that the UDWR has found roughly 7,000 seven inch Tiger Muskies to plant at Scofield, when until two months ago they said that they could not plant Tiger Muskies at Scofield because they couldn't prevent them from going downstream. When was the last time that the UDWR invested that much time and food and money to rear Tiger Muskies to seven inches? I've looked back through the stocking reports, and they've never raised more than a few hundred to lengths greater than a couple of inches, and I found no instances where they raised any Tiger Muskies longer than 3 1/2 inches. They say they're going to install some sort of screen, but they've always said that the water users wouldn't pay for or approve of such a measure. So, who's going to pay for it now? How do you justify planting the Muskies before you can ensure they don't escape? How effective will it be? Will it be an ongoing nuisance?

Time will tell. The only way is forward. But they've said the predators would control the chubs for the last 12 years. And their first recommendation was to treat it with rotenone 17 years ago. But, hey, the fishing is rated as good right now.

Quote:Scofield Reservoir
Good

Anglers are catching chub in the dam arm of the reservoir using PowerBait and worms. Fingerling wiper and tiger muskie have been released here. The wiper and tiger muskie should grow quickly and reach a catchable size by winter. The reservoir was also stocked with more than 143,000 catchable cutthroat trout this summer. Try using spinners to catch them. (09-01-17)

[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF]
[signature]

DevinJ,

Have you ever fished at a reservoir that has been treated with rotenone? I have. I've been at Minersville Reservoir while two treatments were being done, and fished it the next years that it was opened. I've fished Scofield after 3 treatments, and Strawberry after both of the times that it was treated. The fishing is usually good a year after treatment, and excellent two years after a treatment. The difficulty at Red Fleet isn't the treatment. It is because they've tried to put so many different predatory types of fish (that need a forage base other than insects) at the same time. Give it a year, and see what happens.

Some people think that you need a forage base of minnows, or small fish to grow big fish. Nothing could be further from the truth in some cases. Ask PBH about the trout below Glen Canyon Dam.



[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF]
[signature]

[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000]Fishrmn, I cannot answer any of your questions and will not disagree with any of your comments. What I will say is this: if you want honest, straight forward answers to your questions, you need to find out who sat on that Scofield committee and contact one or more of them and discuss it with them. That's what I would do if I had any interest in the future of Scofield. There may be one or two of them that frequent this board, but I wouldn't count on it. I know for certain that a few DWR personnel monitor these boards but very seldom participate in the discussions. I think all your likely going to get from us regular board members are opinions of which very little is based on hard data. I wish you good luck with finding what you seek. [fishon][/#][/font]
[signature]

Yes, I recently fished Red Fleet. It was not good fishing and it has now been almost 2 years since the kill... Yes, one problem is that it is full of predators and thats what is going into Scofield, predators, so I don't know how doing the exact same thing that was done at Red Fleet would change things... Red Fleet has Wipers, Crappie, Rainbows, Cutts, Perch, Walleye and Scofield will have Walleye, Wiper, Tiger Muskie, and probably some trout species?... The top fish desired in the survey were Walleye, Then Wiper, Tiger Muskie, Kokanee, and rainbow. and like 90% of people said they would fish it if these species were there... I don't know what the DWR is supposed to do to make you happy? Only survey people within 50 miles of Scofield? I haven't fished Scofield in a long time but I will be in the near future as I will be moving out near there, so to leave someone off the survey because they don't fish it or are near it at this exact moment doesn't seem too fair either. Here is a list of the people that did make this plan: "Following the survey, aquatic managers organized a management committee. The committee included biologists, Scofield residents and volunteers who took the survey. Several sportsmen organizations were also represented, including the state’s Blue Ribbon Fisheries Council, Sportsmen for Fish and Wildlife, the DWR’s Southeastern Regional Advisory Council, and the Utah Wildlife Board." This committee did include locals and a wide range of others.
[signature]