03-06-2003, 03:34 AM
Theekillerbee,
They put methyltestosterone in the feed. I'm not sure at what size or how long they fed them the additive laced food. I think they had a real high rate of sterility, but the guys that had to feed the fish were suffering headaches and who knows what other ill effects from being around the stuff.
As to the splake being fertile, can anyone tell us whether they spawn with brookies, lakers, or as a seperate group. And what are the offspring called if they breed back with one of the parent species? Also, if they are reproducing, somebody better tell the Utah DWR because they have been calling them sterile, and have planted them with the idea that if they stop planting them that they will be harvested and disappear. Didn't see in the proclamation that the rule was or wasn't designed to protect spawners. I had the impression (coulda been wrong though) that they wanted to protect the bigger splake so they would eat the chubs.
Did I miss that. Can someone head me in the right direction to find that in the proclamation?
Thebirdsandbees,
I thought that the Utah DWR figured the Colorado river would provide current, and the outflow would too, but that the water would be too cold for the stripers. The old fisheries director told me that was one of the biggest mistakes that they had ever made. They figured that maybe a small percentage of the stripers would produce a limited spawn, and that they'd have to plant stripers most of the time.
Fishrmn
[signature]
They put methyltestosterone in the feed. I'm not sure at what size or how long they fed them the additive laced food. I think they had a real high rate of sterility, but the guys that had to feed the fish were suffering headaches and who knows what other ill effects from being around the stuff.
As to the splake being fertile, can anyone tell us whether they spawn with brookies, lakers, or as a seperate group. And what are the offspring called if they breed back with one of the parent species? Also, if they are reproducing, somebody better tell the Utah DWR because they have been calling them sterile, and have planted them with the idea that if they stop planting them that they will be harvested and disappear. Didn't see in the proclamation that the rule was or wasn't designed to protect spawners. I had the impression (coulda been wrong though) that they wanted to protect the bigger splake so they would eat the chubs.
Did I miss that. Can someone head me in the right direction to find that in the proclamation?
Thebirdsandbees,
I thought that the Utah DWR figured the Colorado river would provide current, and the outflow would too, but that the water would be too cold for the stripers. The old fisheries director told me that was one of the biggest mistakes that they had ever made. They figured that maybe a small percentage of the stripers would produce a limited spawn, and that they'd have to plant stripers most of the time.
Fishrmn
[signature]