Tiger Trout

[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.

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]