Tiger Trout

[Gemcityslayer]

I don't think tigers wait very long (in age/size) before they start eating chubs.
[signature]

[MasterDaad]

I have my own "story of a lifetime" pulling a Tiger out of Scofield recently.

That said, it is obvious to anyone whose seen a "Chub boil" down there that the lake is full of them.

And there certainly is an "unhealthy" bunch of small trout.

In my trips to Scofield last year we caught 5 fish in the 24" class, and a whole bunch 13" and under. Both my father and I caught the biggest trout we have ever caught in the state at Scofield last November.

But where are the fish in the 15-20" range? I think we caught two rainbows and one Cutt out of about 100 fish in that size range.

The lake does seem unhealthy.

But it is also an awesome trophy factory.

I know I will be making trips up there this year going after the lunkers again. And I will be watching the developments carefully.
[signature]

[pookiebar]

Would they consider putting tiger Muskie in there? I mean those fish would eat chubs real early on right. A couple thousand of them and you would eliminate a lot of chubs and some of those skinny twerp trout that are in there right now.
[signature]

[cdbrc]

Just a thought on Chubs. I fish scofild enough each yr. that the people at the gate and the CO just wave me through. Guess that is the blessing of a state parks pass. We (2-3) adv. 30+ fish each. Had one day last yr. of 86. We use white tube jugs tipped with minnow or chub. Have to buy them at sportsman cause I can't catch a chub at scofield!!! The CO checked us in july and by 9:30 we had over fifty. Let him pull in two before he had to move on. My adv. fish is in the 15-17 inch range with close to 30 4# or better. I got 2 over 6#. That is on the dig. scale. I only got 2 CHUBS in that bunch of fish. The only real time I would see a chub is when a big fish would chuck one up, then I would use that for bait. If you fish with white tipped tubes OFF THE BOTTOM, you will catch NO CHUBS. Most of our fish were cuts, 1/4 tigers hardly any bows, but NO CHUBS. None of thoes 15#+ hogs either. We fished the west side ice last Sat. and two of us got 24, a slow day. Same size fish as above with two 20"ers. Leave Scofield alone.Try the tube jugs off the bottom and miss the Chubs.
[signature]

[MasterDaad]

Yup, I don't catch chubs either. I just see evidence of them.

The only one we caught in our trips up there was eye-hooked on a Jakes.

I would like to repeat that because that one fish cut for bait produced the fastest fishing I've had on the lake.

They seem to like the fresh meat better than the frozen.
[signature]

[Gemcityslayer]

You'll probably never catch a chub on a tube jig tipped with sucker meat...unless it is foul hooked.

I think people catch chubs on small jigs and bait...(although I have caught them on small jigs with no bait...at times they can be "aggressive"...

Small hooks and a small piece of worm should catch them if they are around.
[signature]

[ColdWaterCoord]

Thank you for bringing up the idea of tiger musky into Scofield. This suggestion seems to arise every time we talk about Scofield and I want to take this opportunity to reply.

Tiger musky are voracious predators that would undoubtedly do a number on the chubs in Scofield. However, the water management and outlet structure design at Scofield would also ensure that they would escape downstream where they would do just as good of job on the sensitive and endangered fish in the Price and Green Rivers. Tiger musky are sterile, so they would not reproduce in the rivers, but for the 8 or 10 years of their lifespan, they would be eating those native fish.

The DWR had to show that the chance of tiger musky escapement from Joe's Valley was minimal before we received approval from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to stock them there. We also are required to sample the stream and river below Joe's Valley each year to monitor escapement. If we do catch tiger muskies downstream of the reservoir, we will need to terminate stocking and liberalize the limit to remove them from the reservoir.

Downstream concerns are exactly why the DWR had to treat Scofield in the early 1990s. There was an illegal introduction of walleye into the reservoir at that time and we needed to remove them to protect the native fish downstream. For the same reason we are now faced with treating Red Fleet Reservoir to remove the illegally introduced walleye there.

The Aquatics staff of the DWR tries very hard to listen to input from the public and provide the fisheries that are most desirable. There are times however when we are unable to do so for one reason or another. We appreciate questions and ideas and will do our best to address each one of them.

Thanks again for asking

Paul Birdsey
Coldwater Sportfish Coordinator
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
[signature]

[MasterDaad]

Thank you for the detailed response and the lesson on illegal planting.

It costs us all a lot of money.
[signature]

[Fishrmn]

Scofield isn't in trouble because chubs are being caught. It's pretty easy to avoid catching chubs. It is in trouble because there are too many chubs. If you were to fish for chubs, you could have an average of 300 or more in a day. The chubs eat almost everything that would allow the trout to grow from the 10 inch range to the 15 or 16 inch range. Once they get to that size it's game on. But it isn't a situation that provides much of a return on investment.
[signature]

[kochanut]

i dont fish scofield much so can you educate me on something? if there is an abundance of chubs in the lake is it catch and kill on them? and if not, than why not?
[signature]

[Fishrmn]

'Cause it wouldn't matter. You can't kill enough of them with hooks. You can't kill enough of them with Tiger Trout. It would take Walleyes 30 years to kill enough of them, like it did in Starvation. But you've seen what Cold Water Coordinator said about Walleyes. They can't be allowed in Scofield. The ONLY way to get rid of enough of them to make a difference is with rotenone.
[signature]

[Gemcityslayer]

I don't know what to think of it all but if the chubs are just going to come back after treatment... I don't see the use in doing it.

Like I have said before, right now it is a world class fishery for monster Tiger Trout. (Browns too?). I am on the side of leaving it how it is... sometimes the grass isn't so green on the other side!
[signature]

[wormandbobber]

The point of the treatment is simple: 1) higher growth rates for trout--fish are going to grow quicker 2) average sizes of fish is going to improve--more fish are going to reach larger sizes 3) better balance between predator and prey

Poisoning the reservoir isn't going to take any of the trophy potential away; instead, it will only add more fish to it!
[signature]

[Fishrmn]

It's a game of numbers. If you have the ability to kill 10,000 adult chubs every year with Tiger Trout you're falling behind with every 3 or 4 female chubs that survive. If you have enough Tiger Trout to eat 1,000,000 adult chubs every year, you fall behind even if only 300 or 400 adult female chubs survive to spawn. And that's not counting the 100s of millions of chubs that aren't adults.

If you start with a clean slate, and have enough predators (Bear Lake Cutts and Tiger Trout) that they can eat 95% of the young of the year chubs then they will have enough effect to hold the chubs in check. Right now, they can't stop enough chubs from reaching adult size and reproducing.

Even if a rotenone treatment were 100% successful, I've already wagered that some bone head will plant chubs back in Scofield after any treatment, should it happen.
[signature]

[MasterDaad]

Let's make sure we don't get ahead of ourselves claiming a conclusion to the Scofield question.

I think that's why some people think it is going to happen -- because those of the opinion it should or will be poisoned sometimes speak in terms too absolute for the situation.

There's a study ongoing and an open question.

Let's wait and see what the conclusion actually is.

Fair enough?

As for the impact on the trophy fish... Poisoning the lake absolutely will destroy Scofield as a trophy destination for several years to come unless the DWR has a nice batch of 25" trout to toss back in to get it going again.

That said, down the road the potential certainly could return -- in a 5 -10 years.
[signature]

[isda]

What about Perch? they will eat the fry of any fish in large numbers! after a few years there will no small fish left to reproduce. Or is this a bad idea?
[signature]

[Gemcityslayer]

I understand what the treatment will do. It will set the chubs back to "zero" (more or less) and allow smaller trout to experience better growth rates - I am not completely naive to this fact..... For how long though? How soon will the chubs be back in full force? I think it is an inevitable problem - and personally, I don't think treating (poisoning) it every 15-20 years is a good use of money/resources. The chubs will always win.

There are potential world class trout in this lake, getting close to 20lb and it is just silly to me: to treat it, killing a good # of trophy class fish...only to give smaller trout better growth rates...when inevitably the problem will show it's ugly head again in 10-15 years... like I say, why fight it?

I respect and understand the logic behind poisoning it but I still do not side with that cause.
[signature]

[Gemcityslayer]

[quote Fishrmn]It's a game of numbers. If you have the ability to kill 10,000 adult chubs every year with Tiger Trout you're falling behind with every 3 or 4 female chubs that survive. If you have enough Tiger Trout to eat 1,000,000 adult chubs every year, you fall behind even if only 300 or 400 adult female chubs survive to spawn. And that's not counting the 100s of millions of chubs that aren't adults.

If you start with a clean slate, and have enough predators (Bear Lake Cutts and Tiger Trout) that they can eat 95% of the young of the year chubs then they will have enough effect to hold the chubs in check. Right now, they can't stop enough chubs from reaching adult size and reproducing.

Even if a rotenone treatment were 100% successful, I've already wagered that some bone head will plant chubs back in Scofield after any treatment, should it happen.[/quote]

The chubs will always win. Even if you poison it and restock it...it's only a matter of time before we end up right back where we are now. This reminds me a lot of people talking about "getting the burbot out of the gorge"... I have two words: Good Luck!

[quote MasterDaad]Let's make sure we don't get ahead of ourselves claiming a conclusion to the Scofield question.

I think that's why some people think it is going to happen -- because those of the opinion it should or will be poisoned sometimes speak in terms too absolute for the situation.

There's a study ongoing and an open question.

Let's wait and see what the conclusion actually is.

Fair enough?

As for the impact on the trophy fish... Poisoning the lake absolutely will destroy Scofield as a trophy destination for several years to come unless the DWR has a nice batch of 25" trout to toss back in to get it going again.

That said, down the road the potential certainly could return -- in a 5 -10 years.[/quote]

That is my thinking exactly. Yeah, they will stock tigers in there again, but you are looking at 8-10 years before you see 18lb fish in there again... especially since they won't have the food supply they had before (at first...until they come back). Kill all the trophy fish in there, with the chubs,... so that smaller trout can grow quicker... but the chubs will still return eventually (in full force too).... seems counter-productive to me to poison it (1$ million+ [shocked])

Just fun discussing it even though it's out of our hands.
[signature]

[Fishrmn]

Perch rank right there with the Walleyes. I doubt the USFWS would allow them to be there. Probably a guarantee for a rotenone treatment, just like Walleyes were in the 90s. And they would be worse than chubs as far as what they would do to a fishery.

MasterDadd,

They did basically the same study at Strawberry before the rotenone treatment there. They were trying to determine if they could plant enough Bear Lake Cutthroat in there to reduce the chubs to a manageable level. They couldn't. I'd wager that they can't plant enough Tiger Trout and Bear Lake Cutthroat Trout in Scofield to reduce the numbers of Utah Chubs to a manageable level.

As I said in another thread:

I'll make a few predictions about Scofield and the possible rotenone treatment. Off topic again, but it seems like those who are still following might be the ones who will understand.

First. I'm convinced that the study that is currently underway will indicate that a poisoning with rotenone is the best option for Scofield.

Second. The UDWR will do everything in their power to accomplish that treatment.

Third. If they can get the approvals, get the rotenone, and get the treatment accomplished that you will see the best growth rates for fish that most people have ever seen. It will refute the adage that "in order to grow big fish, you've gotta have little fish for them to eat".

Fourth. That the UDWR will immediately plant Rainbows, Bear Lake Cutthroat Trout, and Tiger Trout back in the reservoir. The Rainbows will grow to 20 inches in no time at all. Can you say 'Starvation Steelies'? The Cutthroats will be just like most of the Cutthroats in there now. Most of them will be under 18 inches, and not very thick. The Tigers will probably be fewer in numbers, but there will be some that get big. Maybe not as big as some of them are now, but still a few over 5 pounds.

Fifth. The number of anglers and angler hours at Scofield will increase exponentially. At least doubled.

Sixth. Some bozo will bring chubs back, because they believe that "in order to grow big fish, you've gotta have little fish for them to eat".

Seventh. As soon as the chubs become populous enough to eat a significant portion of the zooplankton, the growth rates of all of the fish, except Tigers will slow down.

Eighth. Somebody will complain that they feel cheated that UDWR only manages for trout. They won't be happy that Scofield would draw people away from their warm water fisheries, thereby leaving them with more opportunities.

[signature]

[Fishrmn]

[quote Gemcityslayer]The chubs will always win. Even if you poison it and restock it...it's only a matter of time before we end up right back where we are now. This reminds me a lot of people talking about "getting the burbot out of the gorge"... I have two words: Good Luck! [/quote]

Good points. If a rotenone treatment isn't worth it, explain Strawberry? It wouldn't be the same without the treatment. And it has been how many years since the treatment?

You're absolutely right about the burbot. If there was a biological solution, they wouldn't be a problem. If there was a way to reduce the chubs with predators in Scofield there wouldn't be a problem. There's no way to poison the "Gorge" to get rid of burbot, but there is a way to get rid of the chubs at Scofield. The problem comes when some bone head puts them back. They were not a problem from the 1990s after the last treatment until roughly 2008. That's nearly 30 years. Were they still around in small numbers? Or did someone decide to help the trout in Scofield grow faster, and bring them back after the DWR raised the limit to 8 fish in 2007?
[signature]