Posts: 3,084
Threads: 21
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
12
[quote Gemcityslayer]I think you are kind of missing the boat though. [/quote]
Nope.
Here's the thing:
It doesn't matter how big a fish is. It could be 8" or 35". It doesn't matter. What matters is the zone of maximum growth rate. If you keep fish in that zone, you'll end up with big fish. You'll also end up with larger average size fish.
You don't have to have a "huge" chub population to grow monster fish. You really don't have to have any at all, but that's another discussion. All you have to have is an environment where the trout stay in the zone of maximum growth. You can't have that with an over-abundance of chubs. You will lose your trophy fishery if the chubs are not controlled.
[signature]
Posts: 656
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
0
I guess we just disagree then.
Better get out and enjoy the world class fishery over the next year or two, because my strong hunch is that it will get treated. And it will be a long time before Tigers reach 18-20lbs in there again, if ever... The crowd that demands 4-5lb rainbows and lots of them is just too vocal and can't imagine having a lake different than the rest of them.
This will be great news to the rainbow trout militia.... and the bug flingers who are afraid of streamers.[  ]
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
And they would never eat a hatchery trout, or a kokanee. Heaven forbid.
[signature]
Posts: 656
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
0
There are plenty of lakes in Utah with Tigers, that get stocked with a lot of baby trout... and the Tigers do take advantage of them. But I don't see 20lb class fish coming from those lakes. Do you?
[signature]
Posts: 656
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
0
[quote MasterDaad]
There is one lake in Utah producing 30"+ Tigers. It's the one with a major Chub problem. It's not a coincidence.
[/quote]
Bingo.
[signature]
Posts: 3,084
Threads: 21
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
12
This whole discussion reminds me very much of the same discussion held a few years ago concerning the Provo River. It's the same arguments, same logic, and same flawed thinking.
With the Provo River guys, it was "river construction killed all the bugs" -- and that's why there were no big fish. What most of them found out was the it wasn't the "lack" of bugs (food), but rather the population dynamics. Too damn many trout (browns). This overpopulation caused a situation where the maximum growth rate was severely restricted, and few, if any, fish could get through that bottleneck. The solution was to remove fish -- but anglers didn't want to believe it. They wanted it all to be about food, or bugs.
today, the lack of bugs isn't an issue. Construction is complete and the insect life is back to normal. But the fish are still the same size. Most anglers know and understand now that it is a population issue.
Now, look at Scofield. It's the same thing. The biomass is full, and growth rates have most likely dropped well below maximum. That doesn't mean you still don't get a few big fish -- it means that you aren't getting nearly as many. How do you get more? You reduce the biomass. How do you do that when the highest portion of that biomass is taken up by chubs? You have to reduce the chubs. If you reduce the chubs, growth rates increase and you'll have MORE big fish than you do now.
but, you guys go ahead and fight it. You'll still catch a few big fish here and there -- but you won't have a sustainable trophy fishery with chubs numbers where they currently are.
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
What's keeping them on a diet of baby trout? Harvest is probably one of the problems. One thing that helps the Tigers get a big boost at Scofield has been the slot limit. I wonder how big a Tiger would get if it could eat 20 inch trout instead of 10 inch chubs?
[signature]
Posts: 656
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
0
[quote PBH]
Now, look at Scofield. It's the same thing. The biomass is full, and growth rates have most likely dropped well below maximum. That doesn't mean you still don't get a few big fish -- it means that you aren't getting nearly as many. How do you get more? You reduce the biomass. How do you do that when the highest portion of that biomass is taken up by chubs? You have to reduce the chubs. If you reduce the chubs, growth rates increase and you'll have MORE big fish than you do now.
[/quote]
I know of a handful of other lakes in Utah, that do not have the chub problem, and oddly enough I don't hear of any 10-15lb tigers being caught at those places... Doesn't that contradict what you are saying?
You're telling me if the chubs were zapped from the lake, there would be MORE 15+lbs Tigers? I am sorry man, I am not going to buy into that. If that were the case, all the lakes in Utah that have tigers and no chub problem, would be producing 15lb tigers hand over fist. You might have more 4-6lb tigers if you treat the lake.. (way more)... (If you call those big fish fine, I don't).
I very, very seriously doubt you'll have "MORE" 15-20lb Tigers.
This will be my last post/reply to this thread, like I said, kind of beating a dead horse.
[signature]
Posts: 298
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2011
Reputation:
0
I feel so foolish in hindsight. I caught a nice sized chub at Jordanelle a couple years back, wasn't sure what it was and tossed it back. I have nightmares about all the baby chubs I caused. I'm hoping that being honest about it will make me feel better. [frown]
[signature]
Posts: 1,156
Threads: 1
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation:
0
[quote PBH]Now, look at Scofield. It's the same thing. The biomass is full, and growth rates have most likely dropped well below maximum. That doesn't mean you still don't get a few big fish -- it means that you aren't getting nearly as many. How do you get more? You reduce the biomass. How do you do that when the highest portion of that biomass is taken up by chubs? You have to reduce the chubs. If you reduce the chubs, growth rates increase and you'll have MORE big fish than you do now.
but, you guys go ahead and fight it. You'll still catch a few big fish here and there -- but you won't have a sustainable trophy fishery with chubs numbers where they currently are.[/quote]
Those of us who trophy fish Scofield are not getting "a few big fish" here and there.
We are getting several. More and bigger than at other lakes, not fewer and smaller.
There are several nearly World Record size trout coming out of Scofield. In the last 12 months, the state record for Tigers has been broken twice there. And several others have documented 25"+ fish.
You do not have an example of another lake to support the theory that killing it will make the trophy fishing better.
Many lakes are currently managed just as you propose.
The results are not as you predict.
There is a very real question about the sustainability of Scofield as is. If it is not sustainable, then yes, there's not a lot of choice but to kill it.
For at least this year, I'm guessing you'll see more photos of me with some trophy fish coming from Scofield.
[signature]
Posts: 390
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
0
If we really are going to have this a trophy tiger lake, then lets do it! Trophy regs for tigers, with all tigers 15-27 inches needing to be released. Let's protect most of them once they are past the bottleneck, as we know they are the ones that have a chance of putting the hurt on the chub population. Fish in that range will do more to help the fishery, and if ever the population of chubs gets taken under control, then the growth of the tigers will diminish, we can lower the slot limit (but only a bit), to ensure the chubs will be controlled, and Price will become a mecca for trophy chasers coming up from Arizona, California and Vegas bringing millions in revenue to the state. Hooray! (sarcasm reaching breaking point)
Honestly, it would be fun to have some radical protection on the tigers past the bottleneck. For large tigers, they will not run out of food for years, will grow really fast, and protecting them would produce huge fish! Each fish past the bottleneck would get to 27 inches in three years max, which would be amazing.
Who knows, maybe the larger tigers will get a mercury advisory in the next year, which would help protect them as well.
[signature]
Posts: 387
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation:
0
If you want to catch a bunch of 20" fish, go fish Strawberry or any of the other dozen rivers and lakes in Utah...(or Colorado, Utah, Idaho, etc... Don't ruin a world class fishery! The tigers are reaching world record size BECAUSE of the chubs, not in spite of them!
I bet 95-98% of anglers fishing there, are fishing with the wrong tackle. You aren't going to catch very many giant tigers on small spoons, small rapalas, worms on the bottom, panther martins, etc. These fish will eat 10-12" trout and gobble up all the chubs they can fit in their stomach... give them a steak to eat and they will eat it. I catch all my big tigers on 5+" baits (lures / plastics). (and you'd be surprised how many of them under 20" will also attack big offerings.
How many people do you see there throwing 7-8" streamers or bigger baits? My guess is VERY few. Funny, if you show up and plunk worms and throw panther martins, all you are going to catch is smaller trout... which might lead you to believe the lake sucks. Most anglers think a 4-5" bait is huge... when I'm chasing big tigers, that is the smallest baits I'll even consider using.[ ][/quote]
I wasn't going to say it [ ] Fred k
[signature]
Posts: 807
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2010
Reputation:
0
Cold Water
I am curious if if there is some sort of half kill plan the DWR would consider doing? Why kill the lake completely off, it seems that if you could just get the chub population down to a more manageable level the tiger trout and cut throats could catch up. What is that critical tipping point? Can it be acheived?
Thanks
[signature]
Posts: 3,084
Threads: 21
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
12
[quote MasterDaad]
Those of us who trophy fish Scofield are not getting "a few big fish" here and there.
We are getting several. More and bigger than at other lakes, not fewer and smaller.
There are several nearly World Record size trout coming out of Scofield. In the last 12 months, the state record for Tigers has been broken twice there. And several others have documented 25"+ fish.
There is a very real question about the sustainability of Scofield as is. If it is not sustainable, then yes, there's not a lot of choice but to kill it.
For at least this year, I'm guessing you'll see more photos of me with some trophy fish coming from Scofield
[/quote]
I will not argue one point that you made here. I completely agree with you. Scofield is certainly in a very good position RIGHT NOW. Maybe even for next year. This is exactly why the DWR has already come out and said that they are waiting to do anything. You won't find any of us arguing against this. But, as you mentioned, the question is long-term sustainability. What you guys will find is that the long-term sustainability is NOT possible. The chubs will prevent smaller fish from getting through that bottleneck in order to switch to a pisciverous diet and grow large. But, right now, you have some very big fish. Catch them while you can. It will not last. In the future, the lake will need poisoning. That's exactly what me, Fshrmn, and bobber-boy are saying.
[quote MasterDaad]You do not have an example of another lake to support the theory that killing it will make the trophy fishing better.
Many lakes are currently managed just as you propose.
The results are not as you predict.
.[/quote]
Wrong. We have example, after example, after example to support this theory. Otter Creek, Minserville, Piute, Johnson Reservoir, Strawberry, etc., etc., etc....
This is a known management strategy. When growth rates deteriorate due to competition from rough fish, you poison the lake to remove them. After the poisoning, trout experience high growth rates which result in large fish in a short amount of time. Given the right scenario (Scofield? PANGUITCH LAKE) you will have trophy fish in a short period.
If you want the best example of this theory, then look at Milton Taft's state record brook trout. Guess when that brook trout was caught? 3 years after a rotenone treatment.
[signature]
Posts: 1,156
Threads: 1
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation:
0
I maintain you are talking about something completely different than what I call a Trophy fishery, particularly given your examples.
None of those lakes are producing world class trout.
They are producing 18-22" trout en mass. And a very, very tiny few bigger fish.
Please point me to a report of any of those lakes you mentioned producing 30+" fish in the last year. It's very rare to get something 25" or more out of your best possible example (Strawberry, which is a huge lake by comparison) in all the fishing hours put in there by members of this board.
Four 30"+ trout have been documented on this board or elsewhere from Scofield in the last 12 months.
As for the catch right after treatment... well... that period is not sustainable by definition. And a 7lb Brook is not the same as a 20lb Tiger.
The long and the short of it is I think we agree on the main point that the end game all depends on the sustainability of Scofield in its current state.
And I think we are both skeptical of that.
[signature]
Posts: 73
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2012
Reputation:
0
HI,
Partial treatments have been tried in a number of waters throughout the country for the last 80 years or so that rotenone has been a management tool. They usually depend on the target species being aggregated into a relatively small area that can be blocked off with a seine to prevent escapement from the chemical once they sense it in the water. For this reason they are often known as "cove rotenone" treatments.
These conditions do not exist in Scofield so a partial treatment would likely not achieve its intended goals. The fish would simply leave the area and move to a location where the chemical concentration would be low enough to allow them to survive.
One other drawback to a cove rotenone treatment is that they normally have to be repeated every few years to maintain the level of control desired. This is especially true when dealing with a highly reproductive fish like Utah chubs.
According to some work that we did at Joe's Valley when we were attempting to net out the cubs from 2005-208, a single female chub produces 11,000 eggs (compared with 1000-2000 for a female trout). In the three years of netting pre-spawn chubs, we removed about 40,000 pounds of chubs and an estimated 940,000,000 (yes,, nearly a billion) eggs from the system. At the end of a lot of hard work, it made absolutely no difference. The remaining chubs just reproduce too fast for partial methods to be effective.
I would like to say that I appreciate all of the different points of view that have been expressed in this thread thus far. Approximately 12 months from now we will have all of the data assembled, can hopefully do some modeling of different scenarios, and will be making a recommendation on what management direction we would like to take at Scofield. I hope to hear from all of you again at that time.
The DWR's mission statement is that we are the caretakers and guardians of the public's resource. We will eventually do what is legal, fiscally responsible, and in the interest of the majority of the angling public.
Paul Birdsey
Coldwater Sportfish Coordinator
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
[quote ColdWaterCoord]According to some work that we did at Joe's Valley when we were attempting to net out the cubs from 2005-208, a single female chub produces 11,000 eggs (compared with 1000-2000 for a female trout). In the three years of netting pre-spawn chubs, we removed about 40,000 pounds of chubs and an estimated 940,000,000 (yes,, nearly a billion) eggs from the system. At the end of a lot of hard work, it made absolutely no difference. [red]The remaining chubs just reproduce too fast for partial methods to be effective.[/red]
The DWR's mission statement is that we are the caretakers and guardians of the public's resource. We will eventually do what is legal, fiscally responsible, and in the interest of the majority of the angling public.[/quote]
Partial, as in biological (Tiger Trout) methods as well.
I'll say it, even if w&b won't. Otter Creek. Huge Tigers. Chubs currently pretty much under control.
http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/officers-on...-utah.html
[signature]
Posts: 1,734
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2007
Reputation:
0
[quote Gemcityslayer]I guess we just disagree then.
Better get out and enjoy the world class fishery over the next year or two, because my strong hunch is that it will get treated. And it will be a long time before Tigers reach 18-20lbs in there again, if ever... The crowd that demands 4-5lb rainbows and lots of them is just too vocal and can't imagine having a lake different than the rest of them.
This will be great news to the rainbow trout militia.... and the bug flingers who are afraid of streamers.[ ][/quote]Where in Hell's bathroom do you find a lake with lots of 4-5lb. rainbows in Utah? If that were ever the trade-off for the tigers in Scofield I say POISON IT! But I know better there are no rainbow fisheries in Utah that consistantly produce numbers of 4-5 pound 'bows so let Scofield be until it crashes then poison it and start over.
And trust me, nobody is scared of chucking streamers!
[signature]
Posts: 390
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
Reputation:
0
The more I have thought of it, the more I think if its not poisoned in the next couple years, any tigers over 15 inches need to be protected, and larger tigers stocked. Lets see just what it can do.
I realize it is not a sustainable option, but it could be killer for a few years.
[signature]
Posts: 2,841
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation:
0
[quote PBH]This whole discussion reminds me very much of the same discussion held a few years ago concerning the Provo River. It's the same arguments, same logic, and same flawed thinking.
With the Provo River guys, it was "river construction killed all the bugs" -- and that's why there were no big fish. What most of them found out was the it wasn't the "lack" of bugs (food), but rather the population dynamics. Too damn many trout (browns). This overpopulation caused a situation where the maximum growth rate was severely restricted, and few, if any, fish could get through that bottleneck. The solution was to remove fish -- but anglers didn't want to believe it. They wanted it all to be about food, or bugs.
today, the lack of bugs isn't an issue. Construction is complete and the insect life is back to normal. But the fish are still the same size. Most anglers know and understand now that it is a population issue.
[/quote]
The Middle Provo reminds me a lot of The Blacksmith Fork up where I live. It used to produce a lot of nice fish, even some absolute monsters, but now it is overpopulated with small browns. Though the DWR encourages harvest of the browns, most are released and we're left with a lot of small browns.
[signature]
|
