Scofield Netting Results

[Kent]

The current management plan was not created by the DWR; however, they definitely had input. A committee was formed and based upon the recommendation of the committee we have the current plan.

[url "http://www.castlecountryradio.com/2017/09/01/three-new-fish-species-to-be-stocked-into-scofield-reservoir/"]Link[/url]
[signature]

[catchinon]

You wrote:

"The 2014 report by USU (excellent read IMO) mentions high densities of the wrong kinds of algae and insufficient numbers of daphnia. Daphnia by the way is the key to growing the fat rainbows that you guys love so much. Rainbows can grow fat, dumb, and happy on nothing more that daphnia and chironomids. Problem? Chubs target the exact same food supply."

That is exactly the kind of information I needed to help me understand this issue better. Not surprising that it came from a fly fisherman. Thank you.

So does rotenone only kill fish, not insects and crustaceans or other life forms in a body of water?
[signature]

[doggonefishin]

[quote kentofnsl]The current management plan was not created by the DWR; however, they definitely had input. A committee was formed and based upon the recommendation of the committee we have the current plan.

[url "http://www.castlecountryradio.com/2017/09/01/three-new-fish-species-to-be-stocked-into-scofield-reservoir/"]Link[/url][/quote]


It is probably inaccurate to say that the plan was not created by the DWR. The advisory committee is set up by the DWR, headed up by the DWR, and guidance suggested by it are pretty much non binding. The evidence suggests that the current plan has been largely driven by the fishery managers overseeing Scofield.

While advisory committee members do not have the authority to "call the shots", it is a worthwhile experience if a person gets the opportunity to serve on one.


One last thing on your linked article. Unlike what was implied in the article, Rotenone was favored in the angler survey over no treatment by a 2 to 1 margin.
[signature]

[Kent]

[quote doggonefishin]

One last thing on your linked article. Unlike what was implied in the article, Rotenone was favored in the angler survey over no treatment by a 2 to 1 margin.

[/quote]

Are you trying to say that this statement was purposely written to sort of hide the reality of the responses from the anglers?

"Responses from some 2,500 anglers across Utah revealed strong public support for introducing new species to the reservoir. Doing another rotenone treatment received mixed support."
[signature]

[Fishrmn]

[quote doggonefishin]One last thing on your linked article. Unlike what was implied in the article, Rotenone was favored in the angler survey over no treatment by a 2 to 1 margin.[/quote]
[size 6]☝︎☝︎☝︎☝︎☝︎☝︎☝︎☝︎☝︎☝︎☝︎☝[/size]


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

[doggonefishin]

[quote kentofnsl][quote doggonefishin]

One last thing on your linked article. Unlike what was implied in the article, Rotenone was favored in the angler survey over no treatment by a 2 to 1 margin.

[/quote]

Are you trying to say that this statement was purposely written to sort of hide the reality of the responses from the anglers?

"Responses from some 2,500 anglers across Utah revealed strong public support for introducing new species to the reservoir. Doing another rotenone treatment received mixed support."[/quote]


I will let the reader draw their own conclusions.
[signature]

[Kent]

[]

It reminds me of the story I heard about The Soviet Union and the U.S.A. The story goes that the United States and the Soviet Union had an auto race (the only two countries participating in the race). The auto from the U.S.A. won the race. The article in The Soviet Union newspaper read something like, "The United States and The Soviet Union were in the same automobile race. The automobile from The Soviet Union finished second and the automobile from the United States finished next to last."
[signature]

[Kent]

[quote doggonefishin]

One last thing on your linked article. Unlike what was implied in the article, Rotenone was favored in the angler survey over no treatment by a 2 to 1 margin.[/quote]

Perhaps a quote posted earlier would be appropriate here.

"Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is already made up." - Unknown
[signature]

[PBH]

[quote catchinon]

So does rotenone only kill fish, not insects and crustaceans or other life forms in a body of water?[/quote]

Rotenone works by inhibiting the transfer of oxygen to cells. This affects any gill-breathing animals. Examples might include fish, insects, and amphibeans.

Rotenone is a naturally occuring chemical found in the roots of certain tropical and subtropical plants. The compound decomposes in sunlight, and lasts about 6 days in the environment, depending on several factors (temperature, ph, sunlight, etc.).

It is mildly toxic to humans. I know personally of one person who drank a glass of rotenone in concentrations used to treat fish (Panguitch Lake, specifically). I would not recommend doing that -- but it certainly did make a lasting impression.


https://rotenone.fisheries.org/
[signature]

[dubob]

[quote PBH]I've addressed this numerous times. Budget is only a constraint when lack of planning comes into play. [font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]Not true by any stretch of anybody's imagination. Budget is ALWAYS a constrait; ESPECIALLY when dealing with State Level agencies.[/size][/#800000][/font]
Certainly, if you fail to plan accordingly, you cannot make a purchase without a budget no matter the cost. [font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]We're talking about a State Agency here. And the way it works is the Agency REQUESTS a budget allocation based on what they would like to do (the Plan), the State approves adjusted budget levels and allocates the funds, then the Agency prioritizes/adjusts their 'To Do' list (their Plan) based on the budget they get.[/size][/#800000][/font]
However, through proper planning, a purchase can be made. Anyone that has to manage a budget has to go through the proper phases of planning and requesting money for projects. This isn't something that is just "all of a sudden" brought up. You don't go into a year without fiscal planning. Through proper planning you are able to secure funding for projects, including federal funding. [font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]Again, wrong; purchases are made only AFTER the budget amount is allocated and the projects are adjusted and the list is prioritized to fit within the allocated budget. Funding is allocated beyond the Agency's control and they make adjustments on the budget they get. Proper planing on an Agency's part is not what gets the funds. The Legislature/Governor determine who gets funds and how much they get. Agency's planing skills have little if anything to do with that.[/size][/#800000][/font]

Another thing that HAS been discussed are the ramifications of NOT doing a project. How much more money may be lost due to NOT poisoning the reservoir for over 2o years? How much lost revenue due to a poor fishery? [font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]Those are NOT answerable questions by anybody posting on these forums. The very BEST you could hope for on this forum is a WAG.[/size][/#800000][/font]


Budget is NOT an excuse or a valid argument for not utilizing rotenone as a tool for managing a fishery. Sorry. That is not valid dubob. [font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]That is 100% bovine excreament of the highest odor and you know it.[/size][/#800000][/font] [font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]Having been involved in budgeting as an engineer for the DoD, I’m fairly certain that your analysis of the process is flawed. Based on over 15 years of experience in budgeting projects of up to $1.5 million, I stand behind my assertions and they ARE valid. You are free to disagree, but that doesn’t make you correct. I will comment no further on this subject as I’ve said what I wanted to say and no amount of discussion will ever change your mind on the subject. Tight lines to you in all your fishing adventures.[/size][/#800000][/font][/quote]

[quote kentofnsl]The current management plan was not created by the DWR; however, they definitely had input. A committee was formed and based upon the recommendation of the committee we have the current plan.

[url "http://www.castlecountryradio.com/2017/09/01/three-new-fish-species-to-be-stocked-into-scofield-reservoir/"]Link[/url][/quote][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]Yes, Kent, a committee WAS formed – by the DWR I've underlined the DWR players below. And there is no question that they definitely had an input.[/size][/#800000][/font]

In fall 2016, the DWR conducted an online survey. The survey asked anglers what species they would like to pursue at Scofield and whether they would support another rotenone treatment. Responses from some 2,500 anglers across Utah revealed strong public support for introducing new species to the reservoir. Doing another rotenone treatment received mixed support.
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. The purpose of the committee was to develop a sport fish management plan that would provide the DWR with recommendations and direction to create a sustainable, high-quality fishery at Scofield.

[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]It’s interesting to note that the responses from some 2,500 anglers across Utah revealed strong public support for introducing new species to the reservoir and doing another rotenone treatment only received mixed support. And yet, a couple of vocal BFT members are saying that the rotenone treatment is really what Utah anglers REALLY want.[/size][/#800000][/font]
[font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]I haven’t found or seen any records of the committee meetings minutes where the discussions took place that would clearly show ALL considerations – including budget constraints – so that we might better understand the overall conclusions the committee reached. We do know that the plan addresses six management priorities that emerged from the group:[/size][/#800000][/font]

[ol][li][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]Re-establish the family fishery, and make sure there are fish inthe reservoir that people can catch and keep.[/size][/#800000][/font][/li][li][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]Maintain and enhance trophy fishing opportunities.[/size][/#800000][/font][/li][li][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]Enhance the diversity of fishing opportunities by adding new fish species.[/size][/#800000][/font][/li][li][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]Reduce Utah chub numbers with a sustainable management model.[/size][/#800000][/font][/li][li][font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]Increase fishing and recreational use at the reservoir.[/size][/#800000][/font][/li][li] [font "Comic Sans MS"][#800000][size 3]Manage the reservoir in a way that’s compatible with the management of native fish species that live downstream.[/size][/#800000][/font][/li][/ol]
[signature]

[PBH]

Wow Dubob. I'm impressed.


FWIW - I also manage a budget, and just wrapped up my own $1.1 million project. The money was not easy to get, but through proper planning I was able to get that project and the money approved. Rotenone treatments are the same. With proper planning those approvals and prioritization issues are all addressed. It takes time - which there has been plenty of with the Scofield situation. In the 20 years that we've known there was an issue, the funding could have been secured.

[quote dubob]
Those are NOT answerable questions by anybody posting on these forums. The very BEST you could hope for on this forum is a WAG. [/quote]

How very untrue. In fact, wormandbobber has discussed this very thing on this very site in the past in this discussion:
http://www.bigfishtackle.com/cgi-bin/gfo...476;page=1


The American Fisheries Society states in their Q & A section of "Better Fishing Through Management" document:
[quote American Fisheries Society]
Q. Why is rotenone treatment cost effective?

A. It has been estimated that for each dollar spent on rotenone
and stocked trout, anglers gained from $32 to $105 worth of fishing. On trout lakes that were stocked but not treated, the gain from fish stocking alone was only $10 to $15.
[/quote]
https://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/fed...onebro.pdf


Scofield fits into the "stocked but not treated" category, and thus is only gaining $10 - $15 worth of fishing vs. $32 - $105. That's a net loss of $17 - $90.
[signature]

[Therapist]

Interesting discussion! Personally, the people at the DWR Fisheries today are head and shoulders ABOVE what we used to have. When I first moved to Utah in 1969, everything was a put and take trout fishery with no regard to trying to establish self sustaining fisheries, no diversification of species, no regard for warmwater fisheries, no management to speak of regarding places like Flaming Gorge, Lake Powell, Fish Lake, or Bear Lake. Everything was planter rainbow, raised in the hatchery system. The premier fisheries in the system were Strawberry and Scofield, which to maintain the fishery, had to be "treated" every 8-10 years. Compare that to what we have today. You have a tremendous fishery at Soldier Creek/Strawberry for cutthroat, rainbow, and tiger trout, with the Kokanee comming on strong. You have multi tiered fisheries all over the state like Deer Creek, Jordanelle, Rockport, Echo, Minersville,, Pineview, and Starvation. You have a Premiere warmwater fishery in Lake Powell, a revitalized fishery in Bear Lake, Fish Lake, and Flaming Gorge, where you can go and catch a 20 plus lake trout. You have Bear River, Willard bay, Utah Lake, Yuba, and several other waters that are incredible warmwater fisheries for LMB, Walleye, Channel Cat, Crappie, and Yellow Perch. Sure, we wish that they could be better, but hey gang, 40 years ago it was a whole different ballgame with two waters getting 80% of the funding and the rest of the state scratching for the crumbs. My suggestion, quite complaining, enjoy what you have, support the Fisheries guys in what they are trying to do and have done, and count it good !!! The pressures that they deal with are tremendous, many of the problems are beyond their control and unsolvable. These men and women are dedicated and work their butts off for us. Be grateful they are there and doing the job !!

[doggonefishin]

[quote dubob]It’s interesting to note that the responses from some 2,500 anglers across Utah revealed strong public support for introducing new species to the reservoir and doing another rotenone treatment only received mixed support. And yet, a couple of vocal BFT members are saying that the rotenone treatment is really what Utah anglers REALLY want.[/quote]

Not that it will matter to you one bit, but here you go.

http://www.bigfishtackle.com/cgi-bin/gfo...20;#993620

To paraphrase;
From the survey results:

Favor or strongly favor rotenone: 53.14%

Neutral: 19.20%

Oppose or strongly oppose rotenone: 27.66%


Unfortunately, the division took down the original link, but I'm sure the hard numbers can be Grama'ed, if someone had unlimited time and nothing better to do.
[signature]

[Kent]

[quote Therapist]

You have a tremendous fishery at Soldier Creek/Strawberry for cutthroat, rainbow, and tiger trout, with the Kokanee comming on strong.

[/quote]

I am in agreement with everything you wrote, except the part about tiger trout in Soldier Creek/Strawberry. I realize a few tiger trout come through The Ladders but an insignificant number.
[signature]

[Joe_Dizzy]

[quote SkunkedAgain]

Don't know if the bows eat chub minnows, but they sure do eat perch... I caught an 18"er at Hyrum last winter that had a belly full of 5-6" perch... BTW he didn't look like a hatchery pet, it looked more like a football... So bows will eat fish too.... Later J

[/quote]

Rainbows of the right strain and in the right environment will absolutely prey on baitfish (or juvenile gamefish/panfish). Studies on Scofield rainbows however have shown that they prey on fish less than 1% of the time, which puts them in direct competition with the Chubs for the zooplankton and macroinvertebrate menus.

According to the USU report, rainbows sometimes suffer from overcrowding of like-minded predators. In the case of Scofield, there were (at the time of the report) Cutthroats and Tiger Trout feeding heavily on chubs. And now you've got Tiger Muskies and (possibly) Wipers also competing for the same forage. Thus, the rainbows zero in on the Daphnia and Chironomids for their nourishment.

The Cutthroats by the way are the piscivorous champions of Scofield. It is amazing how much of their diet is made up of Chubs.

Anyone can find the report here... interesting stuff and quite in-depth: http://www.usu.edu/fel/research/scofield...il2014.pdf
[signature]

[Joe_Dizzy]

[quote gofish435]

Scofield has been on the DWQ's 303 list of impaired waters since at least 1998. The biggest problem has been livestock grazing in the basin and along the lake shore. The DWR has done some restoration work on Mud Creek, a Scofield Tributary, along with some fencing to try and keep livestock from getting too close to the stream. The other factor is the low water years which have contributed to algae blooms.

With the great snowpack we've had this year it will surely help to freshen things up.[]

[/quote]

Thank you for that. Good to know.

I had my suspicions about livestock. That was a big part of the Strawberry puzzle IIRC. Cows had grazed/stomped the tributaries into poop/mud/sloughs instead of pebbly streams which effectively transformed them from trout spawning habitat to chub nurseries and sanctuary.
[signature]

[MSM1970]

AMEN
[signature]