plant tiger trout in the berry

[Jacksonman]

Are these the same biologist who put an 8 fish no slot limit at Scofield, took several years too long to remove that limit and add a slot and almost killed off one of the best rainbow spots in the state?!

I wouldn't call educated, experienced fishermen discussing hand-on observations and knowledge to be "arm-chair bioligist". I was calling for a slot and removal of the 8 fish limit at Scofield years before it was done.

I will also be the first to admit that I am not a biologist for UWR and I don't know the ins and outs of adding species, budgets, survival rates, etc. That is why we discuss ideas and don't take matters int our own hands.

I also agree Strawberry is amazing right now. But what if it could be even better? I know; mind-blowing.

If Tigers and/or sterile brookies could be added without hurting the cutt and bow fishing, then why not? I did say IF, and the great thing about these species, is that IF it does negatively affect the fishery, STOP planting them.

Henry's would be a great fishery without the hybrids or cutts, but I sure wouldn't go there 2-3 times a year without them!
[signature]

[duckdog1us]

it is nice to see the berry with good bow in it again got 70 for so today all over 15 inches but ly no tiger today or brookies for that matter
[signature]

[flygoddess]

You are definitely the Strawberry Guru.
[signature]

[duckdog1us]

it also neat to see how different these two fish are one spot 70 all bow the other 30 all cut but fishing the same way now all the other spot the have no fish in them would it be nice to see tigers or brookies
[signature]

[flygoddess]

I don't go to Strawberry for either of those. I am happy with the way Strawberry is going. It ain't broke...... Been this way for many, many years, can't we just leave things alone?
[signature]

[duckdog1us]

but it was broken for years there were no bows until they tweeked the size they plant them at why not tweek what they are planting it may still be broken and you just dont know it yet
[signature]

[flygoddess]

I would know...been around the block a few years...[laugh] What's wrong with Scofield for Tiger? Not enough for you?[] Why not Jordanelle?
[signature]

[TubeDude]

[cool][#0000ff]Broken? By who's definition. Not by the thousands of anglers...Utah and worldwide...who come to Strawberry for the outstanding fishing both for quantity and quality.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]The only ones who think it is not working are the ones with private preferences and agendas that do not conform to the standards established by people more knowledgeable than themselves.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Strawberry has gone through cycles. At times the chubs have controlled the lake and ruined the fishing for rainbows because rainbows alone cannot outcompete chubs for available food. But that was "fixed" with the current program...which is doing more than well. But at no point was the "problem" the fault of DWR. It was Mama Nature doing her thing. Thankfully, DWR has implemented a program (cutts) and a sub-program (bows) that is now providing both good fishing for big fish and fish to take home.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Almost every rant in favor of putting new fish into a specific water always boils down to a personal agenda...not good biology. Then the rants turn into a "what if?" thing...again based on personal interests and not on sound biology.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Let's give it a rest. The lakes are being managed for the good of the lakes...and for ALL anglers. It is not all about a selfish few that want to restock all the lakes to suit themselves.[/#0000ff]
[signature]

[Jacksonman]

Pat,

No one called Strawberry broken. Just pointed out that possibility that it may not have reached its potential yet and could be even better.

Although biologist have a degree, I really hate the assumption that they "know" more than your educated, experienced, well-studied angler. Like I mentioned before, these more "knowledgeable" biologist almost single handedly ruined Scofield and cost the state millions to treat and re-stock it. Several of us arm-chair biologist who actually fish Scofield were calling for the reduction of the 8 fish limit and addition of a slot years before the "biologist" were able to come up to the same conclusions.

I am not convinced that a few gill net studies and book learning is always more valuable than the actual experience and familiarity that educated fisherman can gain.

Strawberry is an extremely healthy fishery and is doing wonderful. But I find myself losing motivation to fish it and would rather drive twice as far for fish that will likely be smaller. Why? Because Strawberry is generally too predictable, the fish hardly fight and they are generally not very pretty. And I am not alone in my sentiments.

Add some tigers and sterile brookies and I would likely fish the lake 3 or 4 times as much as I do now and there seems to be room for them. The tigers will take over the rocky areas the cutts generally avoid and the brookies would take over the weed beds which the cutts only seem to enjoy temporarily.

The great thing is that these are sterile fish, and if they don't work, stop stocking. I don't think we are being selfish as I don't think anyone is promoting a fish at the expensive of the fishery. We are stating that we think there is space for improvement of an already amazing fishery. Throwing in some sterile species seems to be a low-risk, high reward option. Throw in some 10 lb tigers and 5 lb brookies into strawberry with the 10 lb cutts and bows and now we have ourselves one of the top trout destinations in the world!
[signature]

[duckdog1us]

yea i was waiting for your responce jacksonman we see it the same way and i do belive this would increase the fishing hours on this lake even most of the people that has disagreed with this idea has said at one point in this thread that they would fish it more if....this seem like little risk high reward
i dont want it for personal reasons but i do think it would make it a better fishery and i am not a biologist but i bet i spend more time on the water then most of them so im sure i see thing that they would like to and i would like to see some of the reports that i know they have done for exsample the high water last year i seen that the pelicans just killed the cut on the strawberry river i would like to know how much damage they really did and this year the chubs have had a short spawn because where i get into them spawning the cuts are running them out and starting their spawn already got many males milting at least on the S.C side the berry side tends to be 2 weeks behind already
[signature]

[Kent]

[quote Jacksonman]Pat,

Like I mentioned before, these more "knowledgeable" biologist almost single handedly ruined Scofield and cost the state millions to treat and re-stock it. Several of us arm-chair biologist who actually fish Scofield were calling for the reduction of the 8 fish limit and addition of a slot years before the "biologist" were able to come up to the same conclusions.

[/quote]

Last I checked the Wildlife Board sets the fishing rules not the biologists. I have a hunch that the biologists for Scofield were not in favor of the liberal limits.
[signature]

[Jacksonman]

You may very well be right. I have no idea how and who actually makes the final decisions.

I would like tigers to be added to Jordanelle, but I would probably vote for the musky variety (and in DC too). I think the musky would do much better in those lakes (lots of perch, small SMB and chub) and the tiger trout would do much better in Strawberry.

Scofield is great for big tigers but there are so many chubs in there it can get difficult to get them to bite.
[signature]

[PBH]

[quote Jacksonman]You may very well be right. I have no idea how and who actually makes the final decisions. [/quote]

You have some very strong opinions for a person that doesn't understand how the system works!

I would suggest that you take a few minutes to learn more about how regulations are made. To get started, here are a few links for you to peruse:
Getting involved:
http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/hunting/boa...ement.html

State code:
http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE23/23_14.htm

section 18:
http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE23/htm/23_14_001800.htm

[quote Title 23 Chapter 14 section 18]
2f: establish or change bag limits and possession limits;[/quote]

[quote Title 23 Chapter 14 Section 19]
The Wildlife Board shall exercise its powers by making rules and issuing proclamations and orders pursuant to this code. [/quote]



Learn and understand what is happening before you blast the DWR for mis-managing your favorite resource.
[signature]

[Jacksonman]

PBH,

You sure like to use strong words to sound big and confident. Trying to overcompensate for something?! Maybe you wish something was a little bit bigger?[shocked]

Just curious. What would it take for you to actually consider an opinion has any value to it? A biology degree? Decades with DWR? PHD?

Seriously, we are educated fishermen who may not know the ins and outs of the system, finances or technicalities. But we have educated practical knowledge from a fishermans point of view, and I thought almost all of this was for the fishermen, especially those paying to support the resource. Correct me if I am wrong?

To clarify, I think the DWR is doing a great job with Strawberry. I am not knocking them for saying I think it could be better.

I also think DWR screwed up with Scofield, big time, and if that can't be admitted, then they aren't any different from the rest of our govt. But i do applaud their efforts to undo their mistakes.

Give some credit where it is due. If my and duckdog's opinions don't mean anything from a fishermans point of view, than who's does? I was pissed at the 8 fish limit, called for a slot and reduction of limit, then predicted the state record would be obliterated at Scofield once they did. Not a biologost, but hands on experience proved just as valuable and accurate as biologist conclusions but years sooner.

Too bad being a field biologist doesn't pay more. Maybe more of us with more experience would have taken that route.
[signature]

[Kent]

[quote Jacksonman]

I also think DWR screwed up with Scofield, big time, and if that can't be admitted, then they aren't any different from the rest of our govt. But i do applaud their efforts to undo their mistakes.

[/quote]

How can you keep saying the "DWR screwed up with Scofield" when they didn't and don't make the rules?

Quoting from the 2012 Utah Fishing Guidebook, "The Utah Wildlife Board passes the rules and laws... there are seven board members... Appointed by the governor, board members are not Division employees. The Division's director serves as the board's executive secretary but does not have a vote on wildlife policies."

So if they don't make the laws, are you saying that they screwed up by following the laws that were passed by the Wildlife Board or something else?
[signature]

[doggonefishin]

Against my better judgement, one final response on this neverending thread.


1. RE"How can you keep saying the "DWR screwed up with Scofield" when they didn't and don't make the rules? "
To be fair, the DWR did propose the ill fated 8 fish Scofield limit and the Wildlife board signed off on it. So yes, I agree that the DWR made an error then. How many of you are 100% perfect every time in your job or at home? To their credit, they at least changed things when the evidence showed things were going South.

RE (Jacksonman) " I was pissed at the 8 fish limit, called for a slot and reduction of limit, then predicted the state record would be obliterated at Scofield once they did. Not a biologost, but hands on experience proved just as valuable and accurate as biologist conclusions but years sooner. "

Good grief , don't dislocate your shoulder patting yourself on the back for your brilliance. There were several of us that posted objections at the time to the 8 fish limit, not just you, and predicting the tiger record would come out of there doesn't require a great stretch of imagination.

2. RE" we are educated fishermen who may not know the ins and outs of the system, finances or technicalities. But we have educated practical knowledge from a fishermans point of view, and I thought almost all of this was for the fishermen, especially those paying to support the resource. Correct me if I am wrong?"

"If my and duckdog's opinions don't mean anything from a fishermans point of view, than who's does?"


I don't believe that the DWR discounts angler input. In fact, in my limited involvement with them, they actually almost crave it, and definitely want to get more than they do. So don't think they simply discount what you have to say or even your suggestion about the tigers.

However, the problem with angler input is that there is almost never universal agreement among anglers, even those that intensely fish the same water. For instance, I consider myself as knowledgeable about the Berry as you do and I think you are ly mistaken if you think that 5 inch tigers will be eaten less than 5 inch bows or cutts. One of us is wrong. Both Bassrods and I fish Jordanelle at least weekly during the bassin season, yet we infrequently agree on management issues. So who is ultimately right? At some point, you have to resort to the science and the agencies commissioned to protect the resource.

3. The thing that the tiger proponents have not really answered is the point Mr. Ward made in his letter. Most anglers that fish the Berry want rainbows and they don't want the bow quota cut for any reason. Even if tigers do everything you guys say they will do and don't harm anything, most guys simply don't desire it if the bow #'s are affected. The majority of Utah anglers just want to go out, chuck out the powerbait or troll popgear, and catch a few bows for the grill. If you guys show up at the open house, you will likely hear them whine for more bows to harvest and/or removal of the slot.

This could be why you have only 37 signatures on your petition as I type this.
[signature]

[Jacksonman]

I actually agree with almost all your points. Well stated.

I do believe DWR takes angler feedback very seriously. I was referring to PBH who kept discounting our opinions because we were just selfish, stupid anglers who don't have biology degrees. The actual biologist know better than to discount the opinions of some of the best anglers in the state (not trying to sound cocky but I consider duckdog and my group of angling buddies some of the best anglers in the state, especially with the berry, when compared to the average power bait chucking anglers).

I know that your average fisherman may not want the bow quota cut at all, but I don't think it is because of the bows themselves, but because the bows aren't part of the slot and they can therefore keep every bow they catch.

I don't think many of them would complain if you cut the bow quota in half, use 35% fr tigers and another 15% for sterile brookies and then change the slot to include all fish but kokanee and allow anglers to keep one fish over 22, one fish from 15-22 and a 4 fish total. I actually the majority of anglers would love this as they would be guaranteed to be able to take home one decent fish (20 inch cutt) and the variety would be awesome.

I won't disagree that small tigers may not survive better than small bows and cutts. In my opinion, it seems like if they were planted in the right areas at the right time that they would; but I won't boldly proclaim my opinion as truth. Tigers just seem to be more elusive and prefer structure which make them more difficult to hunt. Their brown/brookie IQ also seems higher than the other fish.
[signature]

[duckdog1us]

one big part of having so few people sign it is because i just posted it on line to see where it would go i have not pushed it at all i want to see what kinda response it would get and other then just the same 3 or 4 for it and 3 or 4 against it it seems most don't care enough to even respond so at this point if people don't care is it worth trying to push it to the average weekend angler at the lake that don't read this or any fishing forum that is where the biggest population of anglers are what if i did post it in sportman's cabela's a few of the heber gas stations and in the marina's i would be willing to bet it would get big fast but to be honest i just spend my time taking my boys fishing and let you all figure it out
[signature]

[PBH]

[quote Jacksonman]I was referring to PBH who kept discounting our opinions because we were just selfish, stupid anglers who don't have biology degrees.[/quote]

wow.

Slow down Jackson. Take your emotions down a level, and think with a level head for a moment.

I never said anyone was "stupid". I never said anyone needed a "biology degree". I did say that many anglers (not just you) are selfish. I would include myself in that category: I DON'T want tiger trout in Strawberry because I value rainbows and cutthroat more. That is being selfish. If you can't look in the mirror and see that your request is also selfish, then you have a problem.

I also never said that your opinion doesn't matter. In fact, to the contrary, I've suggested to duckdog that he contact some of the fisheries managers (Ward, Wilson, Slater, and Cushing) so that he COULD discuss his opinion with them. How is that discounting angler opinion?

The problem with "anglers" is their memories. They rely on them [memories]. They don't rely on historical data. Sure, some may keep a journal -- like bassrods. That's great. But DWR biologists have years and years worth of numbers and data and stats, etc. I trust those guys with their data far more than I ever trust an anglers memory. Hell -- I caught 30" rainbow trout back in the 80's out of Otter Creek.

So, Jackson, I apologize if you took my remarks as condescending towards you and your opinions. You have your opinions, and I have mine. It's good to know that we have the DWR to step in as a mediator and manage these resources for both of us.
[signature]

[duckdog1us]

I also never said that your opinion doesn't matter. In fact, to the contrary, I've suggested to duckdog that he contact some of the fisheries managers (Ward, Wilson, Slater, and Cushing) so that he COULD discuss his opinion with them. How is that discounting angler opinion?


i have talked with alan ward and he said he was not anti-tiger or any other fish and told me that this would be the first step



As far as being selfish about the waters i fish in the past 2 weeks i have been to 6 different water in 8 trips and only one trip to the berry
[signature]