Skip to Content

Fishing Forum > Utah Fishing Forum : Utah Fishing General >

Edit Log

Here is the list of edits for this post
Report Post |
Re: [Lonnie] Scofield. M.O.T.S.S.
Lonnie wrote:
Your right, It has been 18 years of shoulda coulda woulda. But funding approval was an issue due to prev failures..

This is not true. Funding is only an issue if the funding is not budgeted. Through propper planning, funding is available. Further, past treatments were not failures! They worked! They were part of a plan that included a cycle of treatments followed by a few years of good fishing, then some bad, then another treatment. It was part of the plan, and it worked. The managment plan failed when treatments stopped -- which was probably due to high costs of frequent treatments.

Lonnie wrote:
The biological approach has just been becoming a recent idea ( at least with the use of TM and other frankinfish) But is working ,and better in the long run I believe.

It isn't a new idea. But, you are correct that it is a better management strategy that does work better in the long run. However, it needs a "kick start". You can't just go dump a bunch of fish on top of an overpopulated bunch of chubs and expect results.

Lonnie wrote:
I know they could have done a reboot (poison) then managed like now , and probably spead up the process ( Which was my suggestion in the survey a couple years back)

Many of us know this. Even the biologists know this.

Lonnie wrote:
But for whatever reason , the currant method was chosen.

The reason is simple: public outcry. Rotenone is never the popular choice. People come out of the woodworks to fight rotenone because it is a chemical that kills all aquatic life in the target water. This is never a popular choice -- even if it the correct choice. If managers don't go about planning properly, this choice gets shot down by the uneducated public before it can ever get to the table! So, we see compromises. Unfortunately, compromise doesn't usually mean that both sides end up happy -- rather, both sides cave to a solution that neither are happy with. So we end up with an 18 year long, and counting, problem that doesn't seem to be coming to a good solution any time soon.

Lonnie wrote:
At any rate at this point theres no use crying over spilled milk as they say. Lets let it run its coarse for 3-5 more years and see if we have the success joes valley has had.

No problem. I'm fine with letting it run it's course. But I'm not going to pretend to be happy about this course, or the predicted results. I'll also cheer the day that they come back and say "we've done this long enough. It's time to do something about this issue".

FWIW -- I honestly hope the wipers work. That is the key to this whole issue. they are the fish that will knock the chub population down. The cutts won't do it and the TM's won't do it. Both cutts and tm's will utilize them, but they won't control them. Wipers will. So the success, or failure, of this plan all depends on whether or not wipers can thrive at this elevation. If they can, then we should have good things happen at Scofield, and other mid to high elevation lakes across Utah. If they fail.......well, we all already know what happens if they fail.

Lonnie wrote:
As for Joes Valley, I fished it 4 times this year , and there was no shortage of fishermen at all. On one trip I visited with 4 different groups of fishermen from 4 different states who came there(not together) specifically to target the trophy TM. Having fished JV since the dam was built in 1969 That is something that would have never happened before the current management plan.

I haven't fished Joe's Valley since 2010.

I couldn't help it. It just popped in there.
Dr. Raymond Stantz

(This post was edited by PBH on Dec 12, 2018, 7:11 AM)

Edit Log:

  • Post edited by PBH () on Dec 12, 2018, 7:05 AM
  • Post edited by PBH () on Dec 12, 2018, 7:11 AM