Posts: 3,126
Threads: 172
Joined: Apr 2018
Reputation:
11
That cleared it up partly for me. But I could use some additional detail to get a better understanding.
You wrote:
"They would be eating what they are eating now plus everything that the chubs are eating would also be available to the other fish to eat."
So what are they eating? I don't know a lot, evidently, about the lake's ecology and the food chains.
[signature]
The older I get the more I would rather be considered a good man than a good fisherman.
Posts: 15,495
Threads: 1,313
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
12
[quote catchinon]
So what are they eating? I don't know a lot, evidently, about the lake's ecology and the food chains.
[/quote]
I am not a biologist, but I'm confident the fish in Scofield have the usual insects that are available in all of the other mature reservoirs in Utah. Trout eat the same food that the chubs eat, and if and when the chubs are removed the food that the chubs are currently eating will be available for the trout. I have fished Scofield for well over 50 years and every time the non-game fish have been removed the trout have grown fast, fat and large. I am also a fan of multi-species and I'm happy to see other species, in addition to trout, being planted, in Scofield, and many other Utah waters.
[signature]
Posts: 172
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
0
I was very pleased to see the results ! The length, stamina, and number of fish. Give it a few more years and we will see the girths getting fatter.
I say have patience. It is on its way ! Things will never be the way they were in the past. The only thing that I am hoping for is the sterile walleye.
It doesn't look like it will happen. The next couple years of years will determine that.
Good job Utah DWR !
[signature]
Posts: 1,408
Threads: 18
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
13
I will be the first to normally agree with what the DWR has done and the netting results certainly show some positives on Schofield. But, I have to agree, at least partly, with Northman on this debate. I think the results of having more trout in the nets than in years past is at least partly due to the fact that they have stocked the daylights out of it with larger fish. The presence of those trout is not, to me, an indication of success. And, I believe they should have pushed the reset button and poisoned it several years ago.
With that being said, I do believe the wiper is a huge success and, if not an anomaly, and indicator of good things to come. I remember when wipers were stocked into Minersville and Otter Creek...in both cases, it took several years before any showed up in gillnets. What you must remember about gillnets is that they aren't set to specifically target wipers and may not be the right size to catch them. So, when they do, it is usually a good indication of some decent numbers. IF that is the case and good numbers of wipers are surviving in Schofield, they will eliminate the chubs and rainbow/trout numbers and health will quickly improve.
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
My money says that the 14 inch Wiper is one of these;
Quote:SCOFIELD RES CARBON WIPER 399 10.51 10/13/2017
If that's the case, it grew a mere 4 1/4 inches in 19 months. Not exactly a stunning performance. How expensive is it to raise Wipers to 11 inches before planting them? How many can they raise to that size? Do they actually do anything if they're growing that slowly?
Looks to me like they're salting the mine, so to speak. Using the planting trucks to make it look like they're accomplishing their goal.
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{[/green][size 4][green]⦇[/green][/size][blue]°>[/blue]
[signature]
Posts: 1,408
Threads: 18
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
13
Fshrmn, that is my worry too. And, it could very well be right. But, even if that wiper was one of the larger ones stocked. It and any others in there will quickly begin eliminating those chubs. The key is that a healthy population of wipers must be established. Catching a wiper in the nets, though, after just two years of stocking them is a good sign in comparison to other lakes.
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
Quickly?? If it grew 4 1/4 inches in 18 or 19 months, it isn't going to quickly begin eliminating chubs. The Tiger Musky have grown more than 5 times that fast.
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{[/green][size 4][green]⦇[/green][/size][blue]°>[/blue]
[signature]
Posts: 15,495
Threads: 1,313
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
12
[quote wiperhunter2]
...more and more evidence mounts that the DWR's new approach is working and in a much shorter time.
[/quote]
Much shorter time than what?
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
[quote Stickleback]Without asking and knowing it was a DWR doing a study I would guess from the “thin belly’s and loose skin” that they all just had their stomach’s pumped for a diet analysis. But I am just assuming and we all know what that means.[/quote]
If we're going to assume, I would assume that they'd take the best looking pictures that they could. You know.... take the pictures of nice full bellies, full fins, healthy fish. Then do the stomach pumping. After all, they're trying to impress people with their success.
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{[/green][size 4][green]⦇[/green][/size][blue]°>[/blue]
[signature]
Posts: 33,248
Threads: 412
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
33
LOL, than poisoning it, if they had poisoned it at the same time as they stocked the predator fish. IMO, if they had put walleye in there, I believe there would be even better results but if they continue to put wipers in there, the same effect will happen, it will just take longer.
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
[quote kentofnsl][quote wiperhunter2]
...more and more evidence mounts that the DWR's new approach is working and in a much shorter time.
[/quote]
Much shorter time than what?[/quote]
Shorter than the 20 years that they've known the chubs were back. Shorter than the 16 years since the UDWR Southern Region Fisheries Chief recommended they treat Scofield with rotenone.
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{[/green][size 4][green]⦇[/green][/size][blue]°>[/blue]
[signature]
Posts: 1,408
Threads: 18
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
13
Even if that wiper is one of those larger ones stocked, it is still going to consume chubs. Also, IF (and that is a very big IF) that wiper's growth rate is as slow as you think it is, it is that slow only because of a shortened growing season. Which means what? It will only consume chubs in those few months. The bottom line, though, is that it is consuming chubs. IF the population of wipers is established and being established like I think it is, the result will be more and more wipers consuming chubs in that short growing season. Any way you hatch it, though, wipers will be eating chubs. And, if the DWR's analysis that the chub population is not not only an older population but a declining one is accurate, what is the major culprit of that decline going to be? Tiger musky? Or, wipers? As far as I a concerned, we have examples of wipers wiping out chub/prey populations...do we have one of tiger musky? So, even if that is a one of those larger wipers that was stocked and even if its growth rate was slow, it will eat chubs and chances are it isn't all alone in that endeavor! Time will tell what will happen....my bet is firmly on the side that the wipers will eventually do their job as they have in Minersville and Newcastle.
Also, FWIW, tiger musky simply by their nature will have a much faster growth rate than wipers...that isn't unusual. And, those 10 inch wipers were stocked in October which would mean that it only had one growing season. To me, that growth rate would not be alarming considering when it was stocked and how many summers it had to grow.
More than likely, though, is that the wiper caught in the net was one of the 4500 7.5 inchers that were stocked in 2017. Just from a statistical standpoint that would make far more sense. Afterall, only 399 10 inchers were stocked.
[signature]
Posts: 15,495
Threads: 1,313
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
12
Comments deleted.
[signature]
Posts: 3,084
Threads: 21
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
12
[quote kentofnsl]Are you saying the recovery is going faster than if they would have poisoned it? [/quote]
[quote wiperhunter2]LOL, than poisoning it, if they had poisoned it at the same time as they stocked the predator fish. [/quote]
Wiperhunter -- sorry, but that's not necessarily correct. If they had poisoned it in 2017, then immediately restocked the exact same fish that they stocked in 2017, what would the difference today be?
The difference today would be that those same fish would have had faster growth rates due to the removal of chubs. The predator fish (tiger musky, wipers) would have preyed on stocked rainbow trout and a small population of chubs, due to doing only a single rotenone treatment and thus not 100% kill. Growth rates turn high, which equals FAST growth rates which equals big fish.
We'd still be ahead of the current plan of "patience".
I'll give the DWR credit: They are doing a fantastic job of promoting their fisheries plan at Scofield. It (the plan) is working. They are convincing many an angler how great the plan is working -- even if it is behind the alternative.
[signature]
Posts: 33,248
Threads: 412
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
33
That could be true if you were not taking into account the bigger trout that were caught this Winter through the ice. If they had poisoned it, they would have all been dead but there was a least one member that posted a pic of a big trout this Winter and there is likely many more that were caught that were never reported, plus many more that were never caught. If there were none of those bigger trout left you would of course be correct. By bigger trout I'm saying 5 lbs or larger.
Kent- Hope that answers your question too.
[signature]
Posts: 481
Threads: 24
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
7
Interesting stuff. Looks like the Tiger Muskies are on track.
Not sure what to think about the Wipers... do they do well in reservoirs (at any elevation) without some type of shad/alewive forage base?
FWIW - I agree with Northman's observations on the rainbows in the picture... they look like straight hatchery product.
I've read a few biologists reports on Scofield and they all have one common theme that never seems to get discussed.. poor water quality. What is the source? Why no mention of it? Has this always been the case at Scofield? Is it climate related?
The 2014 report by USU (excellent read IMO) mentions high densities of the wrong kinds of algae and insufficient numbers of daphnia. Daphnia by the way is the key to growing the fat rainbows that you guys love so much. Rainbows can grow fat, dumb, and happy on nothing more that daphnia and chironomids. Problem? Chubs target the exact same food supply.
Astonished at how many chubs the Cutthroats and Tigers consume (1, 2 in that order). Rainbows almost zero.
[signature]
Posts: 1,536
Threads: 44
Joined: Oct 2013
Reputation:
3
[quote Joe_Dizzy]I've read a few biologists reports on Scofield and they all have one common theme that never seems to get discussed.. poor water quality. What is the source? Why no mention of it? Has this always been the case at Scofield? Is it climate related?[/quote]
Scofield has been on the DWQ's 303 list of impaired waters since at least 1998. The biggest problem has been livestock grazing in the basin and along the lake shore. The DWR has done some restoration work on Mud Creek, a Scofield Tributary, along with some fencing to try and keep livestock from getting too close to the stream. The other factor is the low water years which have contributed to algae blooms.
With the great snowpack we've had this year it will surely help to freshen things up.[  ]
[signature]
Posts: 3,084
Threads: 21
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
12
[quote Joe_Dizzy]Interesting stuff. Looks like the Tiger Muskies are on track.
Not sure what to think about the Wipers... do they do well in reservoirs (at any elevation) without some type of shad/alewive forage base? [/quote]
Absolutely not.
Wipers are an excellent management tool to use in reservoirs where a forage fish (golden shiners, Utah chubs) are a problem. They have shown the ability to completely wipe out these forage species. This is the very reason why they have been stocked into Scofield.
The biggest question with wipers at Scofield is: can they do it at this elevation?
Wipers have never been attempted at a reservoir this high in elevation. It will be interesting to see if they are able to make an impact with a shortened summer growth season, and a lengthened winter dormant season. I'm crossing my fingers, and sacrificing a chicken in Jobu's name, hoping it will work.
[signature]
Posts: 14,248
Threads: 176
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
15
Don't know if the bows eat chub minnows, but they sure do eat perch... I caught an 18"er at Hyrum last winter that had a belly full of 5-6" perch... BTW he didn't look like a hatchery pet, it looked more like a football... So bows will eat fish too.... Later J
[signature]
Posts: 3,084
Threads: 21
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
12
[quote dubob]Did any of you know and consider costs when you jumped all over the DWR for making, in your opinion, the wrong decision in managing Scofield?[/size][/#800000][/font][/quote]
I've addressed this numerous times. Budget is only a constraint when lack of planning comes into play. Certainly, if you fail to plan accordingly, you cannot make a purchase without a budget no matter the cost. However, through proper planning, a purchase can be made.
Anyone that has to manage a budget has to go through the proper phases of planning and requesting money for projects. This isn't something that is just "all of a sudden" brought up. You don't go into a year without fiscal planning. Through proper planning you are able to secure funding for projects, including federal funding.
Another thing that HAS been discussed are the ramifications of NOT doing a project. How much more money may be lost due to NOT poisoning the reservoir for over 2o years? How much lost revenue due to a poor fishery?
Budget is NOT an excuse or a valid argument for not utilizing rotenone as a tool for managing a fishery. Sorry. That is not valid dubob.
[signature]
|
