plant tiger trout in the berry

[Jacksonman]

I honestly don't think my suggestions are selfish as I define selfish as demanding something at the expense of others. I honestly believe these suggestions, if properly implemented, would be the best for all anglers.

With 60% bows, 25% tigers and 15% brookies, and changing the slot to include all fish but allow one fish in the slot to be kept, I would bet that the rainbows would get bigger faster, the tigers and brookies would thrive, and anglers would travel hours longer and more often to plan trips to Strawberry.

With the additional revenue, more bows could be planted eventually. Although Henry's is very different, it is hard to claim that the hybrid and brookie plantings have only helped and improved the fishery for all.
[signature]

[PBH]

[quote Jacksonman]I honestly don't think my suggestions are selfish as I define selfish as demanding something at the expense of others. I honestly believe these suggestions, if properly implemented, would be the best for all anglers.

With 60% bows, 25% tigers and 15% brookies...[/quote]

I like your definition of selfish. "...Demanding something at the expense of others".

Using that definition, I'll ask again: if you start stocking Strawberry with tiger trout, which other lakes in Utah will have their quotas of tiger trout reduced in order to compensate for the increased demand needed for Strawberry?

At the expense of others. Those tiger trout have to come from somewhere. Until we determine whether or not our hatcheries can produce enough tiger trout to stock Strawberry without reducing then number of tiger trout in other waters, then this request, according to your own definition, is selfish.

Have any of you guys asked that question yet? How many tiger trout would it take to consistently stock Strawberry, and where would they come from? I honestly don't know the answer. If our hatcheries can produce them without negatively impacting other waters, then go for it.

Yes. I'm being selfish.
[signature]

[Jazzperch1]

so ive been reading this thread for awhile now and i thought i would chime in. strawberry is a great fishery and why do you need tiger trout in there so bad, im not for it and im not against it but i do think from experince that strawberry attracts people from all over the state and like TD said around the west just to fish that lake, its obviously a good fishing lake if it get that much good say about it and people are always getting there limits most of the time. the fish ive caught there have been healthy and good fishting. now i dont know if the tiger trout would do a whole lot to the fishery, it could be great and make the lake better but on the other hand you dont know if it will make it less productive then it is, they cant reproduce so if people keep em thats it until they stock it again the next year or so. also taking away from the quota of how many tigers can be planted in the lakes around here. like alot of people have said dont try to fix something that aint broken, and thats the case in my opinion.
Now on the comment about putting muskys in deer creek and the nelle is rediculous, the perch are already in check from all the walleye and big bass aswell as some trout. now jordanelle you have huge bass that would gorge themselves on perch and chubs aswell as the monster browns in there, the muskys might help out the chub population but then there wont be as much forage for the bass, also ther perch population there isnt the greatest.
[signature]

[doggonefishin]

Dangit one more post for me. (I'll let you and PBH hash out the definition of selfish[]) But here is a suggestion for you guys for what I might think the DWR might more strongly consider than what has been proposed.

1. You mentioned allowing slot cutt harvest. We already tried that at the Berry and it was an epic fail. The temptation to keep 20 inch fish is too great for our numerous harvesting anglers. I doubt the DWR will go for it now, nor would I favor that personally. Additionally, the DWR (for good reason) doesn't want to change the cutt quota. I wouldn't propose doing that in your tiger plan either.

2. If you get your tigers, and they do take away from the rainbow quota, do not have them in the slot. This might make your whole effort palatable to the harvesting crowd that definitely will not favor more restrictions on what they can take home. Promote them as an additional fun fish to catch and harvest. If they are as hard-to-catch as you say, then Joe 6 pack won't take out a ton of them anyway. (I guess I haven't felt they were overly hard to catch.) Also, don't push for more than a 10-15% changeover from bows to tigers. That may not result in much resistance, and you will have a few to catch and hopefully get decent sized.

3. The supply problem PBH brings up is something you'll have to figure out and have intelligent answers for too.

Good luck.
[signature]

[Jacksonman]

Doggone,

I would accept your recommendations if that were the only way to get tigers (and maybe brookies) in the berry.

But I like the idea of all fish in the slot but an angler can keep one over the slot, one in the slot, and 3 or 4 total. It seems that there are an abundance of 16-20 inch cutts anyways, and if the other fish were included in the slot, not every slot fish kept would be a cutt; probably only 50% or less. In addition, almost every trip on or two slot cutts seem to get fatally hooked but have to be released to die anyways.

By allowing one fish in the slot to be kept, I don't think the harvesters would complain much about including all fish in the slot, and adding some tigers and brookies instead of the full allotment of rainbows. It really seems like a win win and the best use of resources to allow selective harvest and mantain a trophy fishery.


PBH,

If finding the tiger or making more tigers is the greatest obstacle, I am not too worried. As techniques and technology improves, the cost for producing more tigers will be less.

There are also dozens of lakes that receive healthy allotments of tigers that could use a decrease in plantings. Huntington, Electric, several high uinta lakes, CCR, etc. It also seems like several times a year the DWR plants thousands of tigers into lakes for the sole reason that they produced too many and had no where to plant them (look at yuba plantings a few years ago). It would make sense to reduce tiger plantings at lakes that see very few angler hours and produces few big fish and often winterkills, and plant them at a lake like the berry.

The other option is making millions of dollars and donating a fish hatchery at Strawberry and paying for tiger and brookie production myself.

Jazzperch,

I don't know you but it doesn't sound like you fish these lakes much. DC is overrun by 6-8 inch small mouth. The perch are coming back. White bass may be setting up shop. There are some crappie and some chub. Musky would do very well in DC and the smallmouth fishery could use some major thinning.

Jordanelle isn't as prime as DC but still has a very healthy perch population, tons of chubs and lots of little small mouth. Musky would also do very well there.

In addition, there aren't any musky legs within a reasonable distance to Utah County. It would be very nice for thousands of us fishermen to have a musky water a little closer to home.

Again all of these fish are sterile, so if at any point it is determined that it is not working, we can stop planting them. Low risk, high reward!
[signature]

[flygoddess]

I will agree on Tigers of both species in Deer Creek and Jordanelle. Even Bookies[sly]
[signature]

[Jazzperch1]

The thing with the nelle is the perch population isnt that great at all especially the last few years. Jordanelle is a bass fishing lake and thats why people go there not for trout really and perch somewhat. the funny thing is i probly fish those lakes way more than you and i camp at those lakes about every weekend in the summer. and im not saying it would not be cool to have musky in those lakes, i would love to catch one of those beasts but i just dont know if it would work out that way, but i could be wrong im no expert just a fisherman with an outlook on it. ive also been reading more into it about the tiger trout in the berry and i think if its regulated right and there is not over harvest on them then maybe it could work out great. the only way to find out is to try it. but i dont know if it will ever happen.
i also understand the point on maybe muskies in DC for the WB but thats it, crappie have been in there for a few years and they would have boomed by now if it was going to happen big. but the perch pop at DC is right where it needs to be, big jumbos in there!!!

tightlines
[signature]

[duckdog1us]

i know im stealing this thank you tube dude


it sounds like alot of good/bad ideas people have just remember that udwr is here to help us although we don't always agree with what they do i urge people with ideas or opinions to attended

http://www.bigfishtackle.com/cgi-bin/gfo...93;#744293
[signature]

[TubeDude]

[cool][#0000ff]See ya there.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Maybe also on the water sometime. I think we could probably stand each other for a full day of fishing.[/#0000ff]
[signature]

[PBH]

[quote Jacksonman]It would make sense to reduce tiger plantings at lakes that see very few angler hours and produces few big fish and often winterkills, and plant them at a lake like the berry.

The other option is making millions of dollars and donating a fish hatchery at Strawberry ...[/quote]

Jackson - Good discussion so far.

some thoughts concerning your comments above:

While on the surface, the reduce efforts in stocking waters you mentioned above might sound good -- but wouldn't they actually be counterproductive? I mean, if you lower stocking in waters that have frequent winterkills, wouldn't that mean that those waters would then turn into an empty fishery with no fish at all? I'm not sure what waters the DWR stocks tiger trout in that has this problem (winterkills), so it might not actually be an issue.

Further, why in the world would we ever want the DWR to cut stocking rates based on size potential of a water? Please don't confuse this with the magic of population density as it relates to fish size. I think we're talking solely "potential" here, correct? So if a water just doesn't have the "potential" to grow large trout, would you really consider reducing it's stocking quota on that basis?

Finally, angler hours: wouldn't reducing stocking possibly further reduce angler hours? maybe those lakes need additional stockings? I don't know -- I'm just thinking out loud, which I imagine you were as well.


As for Strawberry and a hatchery -- I thought that they already had a "hatchery"? Haven't they already created spawning channels for the cutthroat to hopefully increase natural reproduction of the cutts -- the staple trout that Strawberry is managed for -- as well as for the kokanee?

Typically, you get the hatchery request from bass anglers. What many anglers forget is that some of the best "hatcheries" the State has are our lakes and reservoirs! Utilize them! (obviously, you're not going to get more tiger trout through this method)

Certainly, some of those questions could be better answered by a fisheries manager.
[signature]

[Jacksonman]

If there are lakes that get very few angling hours, the fish don't get big and the lake often winterkills, then I am all about leaving it a baron lake. Sounds like that lake is just not a great candidate as a fishing lake. Why waste the resources?

If the lakes get fished a lot and are managed as a put and take (like several of the high uinta lakes close to highways and popular trails), I wouldn't even begin to suggest cutting plantings at these lakes.

I am also completely for improving spawning success in reservoirs to reduce planting needs. If there is work that can be done to improve spawning success at the berry, I would be all for that. Then some of the extra funds and space could be used for planting other species.

On that note, why note add browns to the berry for a few years and then cut it off? Browns seem to be rather efficient at self-sustaining while keeping their numbers in check. This would be a cheap addition.

I also really like the idea of adding species, then including all species in the slot, but allowing anglers to keep one fish in the slot. I think that would make everyone happy, including myself. I hate having to release a 20" cutt that is surely going to die that one of my neighbors would have loved to have eaten.

Again, I think Strawberry is being managed magnificently and is a super healthy fishery. But I do think it could be a bit better.
[signature]

[PBH]

Browns / brook trout

One thing that has not been brought up yet is downstream migration from strawberry (and upstream migration). What kind of effects would having species like brook trout and brown trout have on streams in that drainage?

Adding a sterile species, like tiger trout, is one thing -- something that might be completely plausible. However, adding species like brown trout could be a major problem. Brook trout would be a "so-so" thing, with triploidy options -- but I'd still be surprised if they were ever seriously considered.

I think if you are serious about tiger trout, then stick with tiger trout and leave out the request for all the other species.



I still say that Strawberry is pretty dang good how it is, managed with rainbows, cutts, and kokanee. But, obviously, some others want more.
[signature]

[ColdWaterCoord]

[font "Times New Roman"]Hello all. My name is Paul Birdsey and I am the Coldwater Sportfish Coordinator for the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources. I have been following this thread for some time and I thought I might answer a few of the questions/comments that have been posted here in an effort to let everyone know how fishery management decisions are made.[/font]
[font "Times New Roman"] [/font]
[font "Times New Roman"]The Division of Wildlife Resources, like all government agencies, makes decisions in an environment bounded by five parameters; technical, biological, socio-political, legal, and financial. No decision can violate any of these boundaries without significant consequences. Using these parameters, let’s look at the idea of stocking tiger trout into Strawberry Reservoir dealing with easiest one first, legal. Does the DWR have the legal authority to stock tiger trout into Strawberry? Certainly. Therefore this is not an issue. The other four are trickier though.[/font]
[font "Times New Roman"] [/font]
[font "Times New Roman"]The mission of the DWR is “is to serve the people of Utah as trustee and guardian of the state's wildlife.” In the case of a sportfishery such as Strawberry, that means we need to ask the people who use the resource what they want. As pointed out by Alan Ward in a letter posted earlier in this thread, most of the people that use Strawberry want a rainbow fishery. This does not mean that other alternatives are not possible, but their wishes must be considered in the decision making process.[/font]
[font "Times New Roman"] [/font]
[font "Times New Roman"]The technical aspect of the decision making process has two components. First of all, can we make sufficient tiger trout to stock Strawberry, and secondly, do we have the capability of raising them. Creating enough tiger trout for Strawberry would likely require additional broodstock which will take three to five years to accomplish. Raising the tiger trout for Strawberry would require approximately 80,000 pounds of additional (new) hatchery space plus the additional space for the broodstock. Any alternative to make this stocking occur before we have the broodstock or additional hatchery space available would require shorting other waters in the state by 80,000 pounds of tiger trout production.[/font]
[font "Times New Roman"] [/font]
[font "Times New Roman"]Biologically, the stocking of tiger trout may be neither a plus or a minus. There are no data to suggest that they are necessary to control the chubs, but they may not be a detriment either. One biological factor that would need to be evaluated more closely is how much forage would be available for the tigers and what would their impact be on the other trout species in the reservoir. Other species that have been suggested in this thread, tiger musky, smallmouth bass, etc would likely have significant biological concerns.[/font]
[font "Times New Roman"] [/font]
[font "Times New Roman"] That leaves us with financial. Stocking fish is not cheap. On average, stocked fish cost the anglers of this state about $3.40/lb. Using the 80,000 pound figure mentioned earlier, this equates to an additional expense of about $272,000. At the very least this amount of money would require some work to identify, and may only be possible at the expense of other programs.[/font]
[font "Times New Roman"] [/font]
[font "Times New Roman"]The DWR takes its responsibility to manage wildlife for the people of the State of Utah very seriously and discussions like this one are helpful in identifying the desires of the users. However, it is important for the public to be informed of all of the factors that go into the decision making process to understand why some things may happen and others will not, and the time it takes from decision to implementation.[/font]
[font "Times New Roman"] [/font]
[font "Times New Roman"]Having said all of that, the management plan for Strawberry Reservoir is being rewritten this year and we are open to all suggestions. There will be two fisheries open houses in the Central Region next week to discuss any issues and concerns with Strawberry Reservoir or any other fishery in Utah. The first will be at the DWR Central Region Office on the evening of May 22nd. The other will be held in the DWR Salt Lake Office on the evening of May 24th.[/font]
[font "Times New Roman"] [/font]
[font "Times New Roman"]Sorry for the long post.[/font]
[font "Times New Roman"] [/font]
[font "Times New Roman"]Paul[/font]
[font "Times New Roman"] [/font]
[url "mailto:paulbirdsey@utah.gov"]paulbirdsey@utah.gov[/url]

[Warchild]

Hi Paul thanks for all the info you posted and becoming a member to BFT.
I am sure you will be hearing for many others soon..

IMO just raise the slot limit up..
[signature]

[duckdog1us]

as far as the slot limit goes i'd like to see it at 24 or even 25 inches its not often i keep these fish any how
[signature]

[flygoddess]

Paul, that was very interesting and thank you for the education.
I am definitely one of the "I like it just the way it is" people, and I am really like how it is being managed. Bigger fish more consistently being caught and lets not forget that 35"er[cool]

Thank you.
[signature]

[duckdog1us]

35 incher please tell me more i know this will sound like a story but i lost one that was in that 35 to 37 inch long class july 6th 2010 and ill be back to that spot on that time of year for the rest of my life wanting another shot
[signature]

[mojorizing]

Paul, MORE RAINBOW!
[signature]

[flygoddess]

It was in the Tribune last year.
[signature]

[maegantheasian]

Awesome post! I am always eager to learn how fishery decisions are made. While I have never fished Strawberry, this helps me understand some of the stocking decisions at my favorite spots. Thanks for the info and welcome to BFT!
[signature]