Tiger Trout

[Gemcityslayer]

Lol hope you were not being sarcastic but that's okay if you were.

I'm kind of beating a dead horse here I've stated my opinion enough now I'll let others chime in[]
[signature]

[cuthroat_guy]

No sarcasm here !

(( I can allready see the thunderstorm coming from this post))

I have pulled up sticks and moss that have given me a better fight than a berry cutt.
Sure you can catch 50 in a day , but I can also catch the same fish 50 times in the community pond!

I really have had perch put up a better fight than a 23 inch cutt on the berry! But hey we are all entitled to our own opinions !

I say leave scofield alone.
[signature]

[pookiebar]

The really big fish at Henry's eat chubs, suckers and leaches. Try trolling a big streamer on a sinking line in a float tube with a full moon up there.

You will catch some fish that just plain scare you!!
[signature]

[MasterDaad]

[quote Gemcityslayer]And by the way: I don't want to sound cocky, but these big tigers are not all that difficult to catch...[/quote]

We took the boat up four times and each time we caught at least one fish in the 24" class. Most were Cutts 22"-26".

The big Tiger I caught from the shore.

I completely agree with your post. There are 5 lakes/ponds within 20 minutes of Scofield that can be Rainbow heaven. You want to catch something and eat it... fine... Gooseberry is right over the pass.

Why on earth does everything have to be a 16-19" Rainbow factory???

As for popularity, the most fishermen I've seen per square foot of lake in the past two years was just as ice was forming on Scofield a few months ago.

That was just after I'd caught my Tiger and another pair of fishermen pulled a similar sized Brown and Tiger out of the lake.

In a way these discussions are a two-edged sword. I'd love to keep the trophy fishery a bit of a secret.

But I agree unless the public really speaks out to keep Scofield a trophy lake, the poisoning is likely to be recommended.

So better the word get out I guess.
[signature]

[duckdog1us]

There are many over the slot cut in the berry we had days where we catch over a dozen and after they hit 26 inches or so they put up a good fight but every one here knows my opion put some tigers in the berry !!
Just for the record if they was to poison scofield and you take away the trophy factor i would not go back
i have also found any of the bigger fish that eat little fish rather it be tiger cuts or even bows after their diet switches to fish rather then bugs the meat is not as good this is why i think deer creek has the best tasting fish in it it has the best bugs
[signature]

[TubeDude]

[#0000ff][cool]Folks keep comparing Strawberry to Scofield. And there are comparisons in terms of chubs. But what a lot of anglers are overlooking...or don't read the ongoing stats...is that there has been a correlation between minnow populations (shiners and chubs) and the size ranges of the largest fish.

When the slot limit on Strawberry was first put into place...along with massive plantings of Bear Lake Cutts...there was a huge population of both redside shiners and chubs. Within only a couple of years it was rare to be able to find any redsides...with a cast net or inside harvested trout. And within the past three or four years DWR sample nettings are not producing any quantities of SMALL chubs. The slot and the cutts are doing what they were supposed to do...reducing the numbers of chubs. There are still lots of large older chubs in the lake...and they spawn every year...but the predators are removing most of the smaller ones every year before they can get larger than eating size.

What effect is that having on fish sizes? In the earlier years of the slot there were more cutts over 22 inches available for harvest. As the food supply (chubs) was reduced the upper size range of the cutts dropped noticeably...with far fewer over slotters being caught. Still a few big fish...the ones that can easily munch 12 inch chubs. But not many legitimate slot busters. And those that are caught usually leave the lake in coolers.

DWR samplings show that the cutts are now relying more on non-chub diets to survive. They are eating more invertebrates...including crawdads and zooplankton. The latter are rainbow food and while producing nice pink flesh for the hook and cook crowd they do not add a lot of bulk to the fish. It takes more energy per bite to eat invertebrates than it does to raid a school of chubs and fill their bellies with a few quick chomps.

I have been around Utah long enough to remember the "glory days" at Flaming Gorge. It was world famous as a huge brown trout fishery. Lots of big macks too. Why? Because of the chubs. The lake was full of them. The water inside some marinas was brown with masses of the little beasts. And the big predators had unlimited food supply. When the chubs were all eaten up the fishery changed. Still some great fishing for some species but the chance at a world record brown is bye bye.

For some reason, DWR and anglers have an aversion to chubs and want to remove them from all waters. In actual fact, they should be stocked in some lakes as a supplemental food supply...like they do in other states with fish food problems. But as long as the state is in the rainbow trout business chubs will be the bad guys...because they compete with the hatchery pets for food and space.

Would removing all the chubs from Scofield be the solution? Yes if you want it to be only a rainbow fishery. No if you want a lake with big fish potential.
[/#0000ff]
[signature]

[wormandbobber]

I have read this entire thread and there are so many misconceptions and falsehoods that I don't even know where to start...

1) The number of slot busters at Strawberry is as high as they have ever been. This is from a fairly recent email to a DWR biologist: ""There was an immediate positive response to the overall adult population due to the regulations imposed in 2003, and it appears that the population will remain at high levels through the next few years. More importantly, the age structure of the adult population has changed with more of the five- and six-year-old fish than we have ever seen in the past. As is shown in some of the following data, these larger (more predatory) cutthroat are very important in limiting chub population growth in Strawberry. Currently, about 20 percent of the cutthroat in the gillnet catches are over 20 inches, and just over five percent are over 22 inches. We have never had that many large fish in the history of this fishery."

2) The number of big/trophy trout will always be higher with fewer chubs. A rotenone treatment would allow this for two reasons: a) because fish growth of small fish would be much higher allowing more trout through the bottleneck allowing them to convert to an all-chub diet and b) because the complete eradication of chubs will not happen.

3) Trophy fish are almost always the result of fast growth and not age. The idea that those monster tiger trout are at least 8 years old is not necessarily true. Once a trout gets through that bottleneck and coverts to eating and preying on chubs, growth is really fast. So, a tiger trout may grow very slowly through its first 3-4 years and then in year 5 grow rapidly to monster sizes. It would take a tiger trout probably two summers to get to 20 inches in Scofield without high chub numbers.

The big thing a poisoning would do is it would then allow a lot of 20 inch tigers to then convert to a chub diet. The possibilities at that point are staggering...one of my favorite lakes saw splake exceed the ten pound mark in only a few years following a poisoning. Why would things be different at Schofield?

Consider this: The state record cutt was caught in the reservoir only 7 years after trout were first stocked. And, that 27 pound monster was caught before anglers introduced nongame fish...

4)....old age chubs in Strawberry are a good thing when it comes to fish-eating trout. That is the great thing about what is happening at Strawberry right now--with all the chub eaters in that reservoir enough chubs still survey to produce millions of offspring each year...those fish are then preyed upon by large fish. The same thing would happen in Schofield...the big difference would be the number of fish that could convert to that kind of diet.

5) The DWR has tried removing chubs from many reservoirs because it maximizes a lake's trout potential. Average fish sizes are always bigger when chubs are absent and fish growth is always higher. This not only makes for better fishing it also makes for more people fishing...

....consider lakes like Panguitch, Otter Creek, Piute, Minersville, Strawberry, and even Schofield as proof.
[signature]

[wormandbobber]

The thought of stocking baitfish into Utah lakes and reservoirs has been brought up many times and in manyr threads. I have read numerous fishermen on this site and others ask why the DWR doesn't stock more baitfish to supplement what is or is not already present to help allow game fish to grow.

Here are some reasons why:
1) baitfish may compete with gamefish--especially juvenile gamefish--for the same food source and eventually outcompete the very fish they are supposed to help.
2) high reproductive rates of many baitfishes force the biomass of many fisheries to transition from predominantly game fish to predominantly baitfish. Fisheries where the biomass is comprised mostly of baitfish or nongame fish are generally not very appealing to fishermen.
3) ESA. Many of our streams or inlets to reservoirs and their associated drainages have endangered species issues that do not allow the DWR to stock some species of fish for fear that they will outcompete endangered species.
4) By adding a new species to a reservoir, many times growth rates of other fish actually decline and average sizes of game fish decline because of competition for food. In such cases, some very large fish are found because they are able to get through a bottleneck that is created and become entirely dependent on prey species for food, but most fish remain small. Joes Valley Reservoir is a prime example of this...some very large splake exist, but most trout are small and relatively skinny and unhealthy. The reservoir actually gets very little fishing pressure compared to when it did not have high numbers of chubs.
5) Disease certification. Because of the rampant spreading of diseases like VHS and whirling disease, all fish stocked must first be certified as disease free. This becomes very problematic for many species of fish...especially those fish that are not native to Utah.

The link below has some good information on the reasons shad are not stocked in more reservoirs/lakes to supplement prey species. The same concepts would apply to other minnows/chubs/shiners...
http://fishing.about.com/...shfacts/a/shad_2.htm
http://www.ncwildlife.org/...04/pg00_mar04_16.htm

And, again, remember the biggest fish ever caught out of Strawberry came BEFORE nongame fish ever lived there...
[signature]

[Gemcityslayer]

[quote wormandbobber]

2) The number of big/trophy trout will always be higher with fewer chubs. A rotenone treatment would allow this for two reasons: a) because fish growth of small fish would be much higher allowing more trout through the bottleneck allowing them to convert to an all-chub diet and b) because the complete eradication of chubs will not happen.

3) Trophy fish are almost always the result of fast growth and not age. The idea that those monster tiger trout are at least 8 years old is not necessarily true. Once a trout gets through that bottleneck and coverts to eating and preying on chubs, growth is really fast. So, a tiger trout may grow very slowly through its first 3-4 years and then in year 5 grow rapidly to monster sizes. It would take a tiger trout probably two summers to get to 20 inches in Scofield without high chub numbers.

The big thing a poisoning would do is it would then allow a lot of 20 inch tigers to then convert to a chub diet.

[/quote]

I'll respond with some thoughts to these:

2) I disagree with you here. There is no way you are going to convince me that there will be bigger trophy browns/tigers with fewer chubs. These fish are apex predators and they grow to huge sizes when they have meat to eat, especially when they start getting older and bigger.. they need more and more calories to grow. It doesn't matter how fast they get to 20", without the a large food source of meat, they are not going to reach 30+" and 20lbs. You might be able to say that rainbows will grow to larger, trophy sizes if there are less chubs --> but that is because they do not fully take advantage of meat (chubs, suckers, etc)... they are bug eaters primarily. Growth of smaller rainbows/cutts in particular would be better if the chubs were gone..., but remove the chubs and the tigers will grow fast initially but once they reach 10-15" they need meat and without it they will not grow very fast. What size do you think Tigers start eating other fish? I think VERY soon, you seem to think it takes them awhile.

3) I agree that trophy fish grow fast... but you can't tell me that the 18lb tiger grew "very slowly" through a "bottleneck" for 3-4 years and THEN added all that mass... Sorry, that tiger has been eating chubs and other fish and a lot of them for almost it's entire life. I just don't think your math adds up here, if they grow slowly for 3-4 years how could they get to 20" in two years? (That seems like fairly quick growth to me, not slow..) In my humble opinion (and experience) Tigers below 20" eat a ton of chubs and other fish...they are not rainbows or cutts, completely different fish. It's not like at 20" a switch turns on and they want chubs, they'll eat chubs as soon as they can fit in their mouth. High chub numbers = big, healthy tiger trout. Without them, I don't care how fast they grow when they are younger...they are not going to reach 18lbs in 8 years without gobs and gobs of meat to eat.
[signature]

[duckdog1us]

[quote wormandbobber]


And, again, remember the biggest fish ever caught out of Strawberry came BEFORE nongame fish ever lived there...[/quote]


i am here to tell you that there is state record cuts both catch and keep and release that live in the berry now i know this for a fact we catch 3 or 4 over 30 inches a year and i know the fish i lost on 06 july 2010 was well over 25 pounds !!!! and it was a cut
but i have kept a few of these bigger fish and they had smaller bows in them
[signature]

[wormandbobber]

[quote Gemcityslayer]


2) What size do you think Tigers start eating other fish? I think VERY soon, you seem to think it takes them awhile.

3) I agree that trophy fish grow fast... but you can't tell me that the 18lb tiger grew "very slowly" through a "bottleneck" for 3-4 years and THEN added all that mass... Sorry, that tiger has been eating chubs and other fish and a lot of them for almost it's entire life. I just don't think your math adds up here, if they grow slowly for 3-4 years how could they get to 20" in two years? (That seems like fairly quick growth to me, not slow..) In my humble opinion (and experience) Tigers below 20" eat a ton of chubs and other fish...they are not rainbows or cutts, completely different fish. It's not like at 20" a switch turns on and they want chubs, they'll eat chubs as soon as they can fit in their mouth. High chub numbers = big, healthy tiger trout. Without them, I don't care how fast they grow when they are younger...they are not going to reach 18lbs in 8 years without gobs and gobs of meat to eat.[/quote]

1) I think some tiger trout start preying on other fish around that 15 inch mark...but some tiger trout may never convert. T'he work done at strawberry is showing that the most of the chub predation is being done by cutts between 16-21 inches.

2) That trophy tiger trout probably grew very slowly at first, I say this because that is exactly what happens to fish at the Gorge and at Fish Lake and at Joes Valley.

Also, a tiger trout won't get to 20 inches in just a couple of summers IF they have to compete with chubs. IF they do NOT have to compete with chubs, their initial growth will be much faster. Right now, WITH chubs, tiger trout growth isn't going to be as high UNTIL they convert to a diet that consists mostly of chubs. That won't happen until they can reach about 15-16 inches in length (and some fish NEVER will convert and will remain small). At Schofield right now, I am betting it will take those tiger trout probably 2-3 summers to get that big. Again, Joes Valley is a prime example of this...

also, remember that record cutt from strawberry grew to 27 POUNDS in 7 years WITHOUT any prey species!
[signature]

[duckdog1us]

we now let anything over 24 inchs go they just dont taste good
[signature]

[doggonefishin]

RE"Also, a tiger trout won't get to 20 inches in just a couple of summers IF they have to compete with chubs. IF they do NOT have to compete with chubs, their initial growth will be much faster. Right now, WITH chubs, tiger trout growth isn't going to be as high UNTIL they convert to a diet that consists mostly of chubs. That won't happen until they can reach about 15-16 inches in length (and some fish NEVER will convert and will remain small)."


This fact is going to be the key factor in the sustainability of the current tiger fishery at Scofield. 2-3 years ago, one could catch a good number of 18-20 inch tigers. These fish have gone on to be the giants of the current day. However, the 8-12 inch tigers were skinny and sickly looking. If these replacement fish almost never "break through" to become piscivorous because there are too many chubs outcompeting them, then even the current good times with the big tigers will soon become a thing of the past. This is something to carefully watch if you go out and help with gillnetting.
[signature]

[wormandbobber]

[quote doggonefishin]


This fact is going to be the key factor in the sustainability of the current tiger fishery at Scofield. 2-3 years ago, one could catch a good number of 18-20 inch tigers. These fish have gone on to be the giants of the current day. However, the 8-12 inch tigers were skinny and sickly looking. If these replacement fish almost never "break through" to become piscivorous because there are too many chubs outcompeting them, then even the current good times with the big tigers will soon become a thing of the past. This is something to carefully watch if you go out and help with gillnetting.[/quote]

Exactly...this is why it is a good idea to poison the reservoir. If you give the tiger trout and cutts a headstart on the chubs, they will not only grow faster and every bit as big, but you will control the chub problem.

My favorite splake fishery is a prime example of this very thing...prior to its last poisoning, stocked splake remained small and skinny because of slow growth rates and high chub numbers. After its most recent poisoning, splake growth rates and sizes are through the roof...some fish have exceeded 10 pounds in only a short window of time. Before the poisoning, I never saw a splake even close to 20 inches let alone 10 pounds! The same thing could very well happen at schofield with tiger trout!
[signature]

[PBH]

[quote doggonefishin]

This fact is going to be the key factor in the sustainability of the current tiger fishery at Scofield. 2-3 years ago, one could catch a good number of 18-20 inch tigers. These fish have gone on to be the giants of the current day. However, the 8-12 inch tigers were skinny and sickly looking. If these replacement fish almost never "break through" to become piscivorous because there are too many chubs outcompeting them, then even the current good times with the big tigers will soon become a thing of the past. This is something to carefully watch if you go out and help with gillnetting.[/quote]


BINGO!!!!


Get those fish BACK in the zone of maximum growth!!
[signature]

[Gemcityslayer]

I think you are kind of missing the boat though.

It comes down to whether you want a lake with lot's of smaller fish that grow fast and get to 3-4lbs quickly but never reach massive sizes....

Or a lake that has the food supply to support and grow massive specimens, up to 20lbs.

There is a big difference between the two scenarios in terms of predator / prey ratios and species present... but what I keep going back to is, how many other lakes in Utah produce 20lb trout? Only lakes that have an abundant food source (particularly for apex predators) will you see these massive specimens.

The thing that is being forgotten here, is that while a massive chub infestation is bad for rainbow trout and cutts, it is not nearly has harmful to browns and tigers... (it is my opinion and obviously a few others on here, that it is very beneficial to those species --> for growing trophy specimens)

You can have one or the other but usually you can't have both.
[signature]

[MasterDaad]

Worm, the problem is you keep talking about average fish size and growth rates.

And the rest of us are talking about 30" Tigers.

There is one lake in Utah producing 30"+ Tigers. It's the one with a major Chub problem. It's not a coincidence.

Yes if you kill the lake, the potential for fishing out a bunch of 16-22" fish will go up. Way up.

There is definitely an open question about the sustainability of Scofiled's Trophy stock. If all those 25"+ fish are aging from the years prior to the chub takeover, then it's only a matter of time (and a short time at that) before the trophy fishery is gone anyway.

Just because Monsters live there, doesn't mean the area is healthy.

I mean, take any Japanese Monster movie you like... they are all about irradiated badness.

But if the current state is sustainable, I'd take it the way it is.

I'll be watching with interest for the results of the study.

Oh and one other note... duckdog I need to invite you with a free cooler full of your favorite beverage up to Strawberry for a day of fishing
[signature]

[Fishrmn]

And it's those 16 to 22 inch fish that become the monsters. More 22 inch fish would mean that some of them won't get harvested. And that would allow MORE 26 to 30 inch fish.
[signature]

[wormandbobber]

[quote Gemcityslayer]I think you are kind of missing the boat though.

It comes down to whether you want a lake with lot's of smaller fish that grow fast and get to 3-4lbs quickly but never reach massive sizes....

Or a lake that has the food supply to support and grow massive specimens, up to 20lbs..[/quote]

NO, I don't think so. What I am saying is that you could potentially get more of those massive fish if you started over. Because then, you would give a whole much larger group of fish a headstart on a growing chub problem. And, I am saying the way things are now if you don't get control of that chub problem, the number of massive 20 pound fish will slowly dwindle down to the point that they are virtually non-existent. The more chubs you have in the system and the tighter that bottleneck will get and the fewer fish you will have get through it...

Again, the chubs are NOT going to go away. They will always be there...the food source to grow really large tigers will NOT go away. But, if you limit that prey source down, what you will do is open up more space in the bucket for trout and for larger trout.

Also, I don't think most lakes are managed for "massive specimens". I firmly believe that I could name you a whole slew of lakes that could pump out some "massive" specimens without chubs if they were managed that way.
[signature]

[wormandbobber]

[quote Fishrmn]And it's those 16 to 22 inch fish that become the monsters. More 22 inch fish would mean that some of them won't get harvested. And that would allow MORE 26 to 30 inch fish.[/quote]

And...ultimately, more 30+ inch fish.

That's what you guys aren't getting...if you increase the growth rates of those smaller fish, you will get more of the really big fish. The problem now is that the growth rates of those smaller fish are dwindling, the bottleneck is getting tighter and tighter, and fewer and fewer fish are going to ever get really big.

But, on the flip side, if you increase the growth rates of the smaller fish, the bottleneck gets looser and looser, and more and more fish are allowed the chance of getting really big.

Also, just an FYI, there is another lake in the south that will be putting some really big tiger trout out in the near future. In 2009, what would have been a state record then was netted and released...and, since that time, the number of tiger trout over 22 inches has slowly and steadily risen. It is only a matter of time before some monsters are caught there too...
[signature]