04-08-2010, 01:52 PM
[quote Therapist]The disease problem has always existed, even in the Hatcheries, however things were not as pronounced 20 years ago as today due to the influx of several very infectious diseases.
As to the Chub biomass then vs now!! 20 years ago the primary stocked fish was the rainbow, which could not compete. The primary mangement tool was to poison a lake, replant, and then do it again 7-10 years down the road. It was easy, cheap, and placated the masses. When it became to expensive and impossible to continue, along with the importation of such diseases like whirling disease, managers were forced to look at other alternatives, hence the Bear Lake Cutt and Tiger Trout solutions. I would venture that had those alternatives been used 20 years ago, the chub problem would not be there and people would not be worried about catching one now and then. Most of the chub biomass would have been converted into Cutt and Tiger biomass. Again, look at the chubs that are taken, they are OLD, OLD, OLD, almost as old as TD and me !!! Once they are gone, there will not be any to replace them. Then what do the Cutt's and Tiger's eat ??????? By the way, what they are doing at Utah Lake with the Carp is what is happening with the Chubs in Scofield and Strawberry, just at Utah Lake we are netting them, at the other two, the Cutts and Tigers are eating them !!!![/quote]
1) The disease problem is what prevents biologists from simply netting fish in one fishery and moving them to another. The difference between diseases at hatcheries and diseases at public fisheries is that the fish at hatcheries are constantly being tested for disease...even 20 years ago this was the case.
2) Again, trout at Strawberry and Schofield will NEVER eat all of the chubs or replace them. And, again, without the chubs, trout would grow bigger, faster, and the biomass lost to chubs would be gained in trout. So, both reservoirs would be much better off without chubs. IF the DWR could totally remove chubs from Strawberry, they would do it in a heartbeat. The reality, though, is that they can't...so, they have tried to manage it in a way that keeps the fishery viable as long as possible. You seem to think that cutthroat and tiger trout feed exclusively on chubs, but this is not at all correct. In fact, cutts and tigers utilize other food sources more than they prey on chubs. And, again, if the chubs were not present more aquatic insects would be available to trout.
Had the DWR used the same management plan at Strawberry 30 years ago that they have now, we would still have chubs at Strawberry and the fishery would probably be similar to what it is now.
[signature]
As to the Chub biomass then vs now!! 20 years ago the primary stocked fish was the rainbow, which could not compete. The primary mangement tool was to poison a lake, replant, and then do it again 7-10 years down the road. It was easy, cheap, and placated the masses. When it became to expensive and impossible to continue, along with the importation of such diseases like whirling disease, managers were forced to look at other alternatives, hence the Bear Lake Cutt and Tiger Trout solutions. I would venture that had those alternatives been used 20 years ago, the chub problem would not be there and people would not be worried about catching one now and then. Most of the chub biomass would have been converted into Cutt and Tiger biomass. Again, look at the chubs that are taken, they are OLD, OLD, OLD, almost as old as TD and me !!! Once they are gone, there will not be any to replace them. Then what do the Cutt's and Tiger's eat ??????? By the way, what they are doing at Utah Lake with the Carp is what is happening with the Chubs in Scofield and Strawberry, just at Utah Lake we are netting them, at the other two, the Cutts and Tigers are eating them !!!![/quote]
1) The disease problem is what prevents biologists from simply netting fish in one fishery and moving them to another. The difference between diseases at hatcheries and diseases at public fisheries is that the fish at hatcheries are constantly being tested for disease...even 20 years ago this was the case.
2) Again, trout at Strawberry and Schofield will NEVER eat all of the chubs or replace them. And, again, without the chubs, trout would grow bigger, faster, and the biomass lost to chubs would be gained in trout. So, both reservoirs would be much better off without chubs. IF the DWR could totally remove chubs from Strawberry, they would do it in a heartbeat. The reality, though, is that they can't...so, they have tried to manage it in a way that keeps the fishery viable as long as possible. You seem to think that cutthroat and tiger trout feed exclusively on chubs, but this is not at all correct. In fact, cutts and tigers utilize other food sources more than they prey on chubs. And, again, if the chubs were not present more aquatic insects would be available to trout.
Had the DWR used the same management plan at Strawberry 30 years ago that they have now, we would still have chubs at Strawberry and the fishery would probably be similar to what it is now.
[signature]