Fishing Forum
Skip to Content


Fishing Forum > Utah Fishing Forum : Utah Fishing General >

Scofield Netting Results

FLASY FISH LURES fishing
(Page 2 of 3)
> > > >
Report Post | Register to Reply
Re: [Fishrmn] Scofield Netting Results In reply to
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.
The moment we begin to fear the opinions of others and hesitate to tell the truth that is in us, and from motives of policy are silent when we should speak, the divine floods of light and life no longer flow into our souls.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton
Report Post | Register to Reply
Re: [wormandbobber] Scofield Netting Results In reply to
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.




<{{{{°>


Fishrmn

"I tolerate with the utmost latitude the right of others to differ from me in opinion."
— Thomas Jefferson

"The difference between genius and stupidity is; genius has its limits."
— Albert Einstein
Report Post | Register to Reply
Re: [wiperhunter2] Scofield Netting Results In reply to
wiperhunter2 wrote:

...more and more evidence mounts that the DWR's new approach is working and in a much shorter time.

Much shorter time than what?


"If I fished only to capture fish, my fishing trips would have ended long ago."
- Zane Grey
Report Post | Register to Reply
Re: [Stickleback] Scofield Netting Results In reply to
Stickleback wrote:
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.

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.





<{{{{°>


Fishrmn

"I tolerate with the utmost latitude the right of others to differ from me in opinion."
— Thomas Jefferson

"The difference between genius and stupidity is; genius has its limits."
— Albert Einstein
Report Post | Register to Reply
Re: [kentofnsl] Scofield Netting Results In reply to
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.


BFT administrator and moderator

(This post was edited by wiperhunter2 on May 20, 2019, 12:58 PM)
Report Post | Register to Reply
Re: [kentofnsl] Scofield Netting Results In reply to
kentofnsl wrote:
wiperhunter2 wrote:

...more and more evidence mounts that the DWR's new approach is working and in a much shorter time.

Much shorter time than what?

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.




<{{{{°>


Fishrmn

"I tolerate with the utmost latitude the right of others to differ from me in opinion."
— Thomas Jefferson

"The difference between genius and stupidity is; genius has its limits."
— Albert Einstein
Report Post | Register to Reply
Re: [Fishrmn] Scofield Netting Results In reply to
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.
The moment we begin to fear the opinions of others and hesitate to tell the truth that is in us, and from motives of policy are silent when we should speak, the divine floods of light and life no longer flow into our souls.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton
(This post was edited by wormandbobber on May 20, 2019, 1:14 PM)
Report Post | Register to Reply
Re: [wiperhunter2] Scofield Netting Results In reply to
Comments deleted.


"If I fished only to capture fish, my fishing trips would have ended long ago."
- Zane Grey
(This post was edited by kentofnsl on May 20, 2019, 4:46 PM)
Report Post | Register to Reply
Re: [kentofnsl] Scofield Netting Results In reply to
kentofnsl wrote:
Are you saying the recovery is going faster than if they would have poisoned it?

wiperhunter2 wrote:
LOL, than poisoning it, if they had poisoned it at the same time as they stocked the predator fish.


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.



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

Report Post | Register to Reply
Re: [PBH] Scofield Netting Results In reply to
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.


BFT administrator and moderator

Report Post | Register to Reply
Re: [k2muskie] Scofield Netting Results In reply to
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.
Report Post | Register to Reply
Re: [Joe_Dizzy] Scofield Netting Results In reply to
Joe_Dizzy wrote:
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?

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.Smile
Report Post | Register to Reply
Re: [Joe_Dizzy] Scofield Netting Results In reply to
Joe_Dizzy wrote:
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?

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.



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

Report Post | Register to Reply
Re: [Joe_Dizzy] Scofield Netting Results In reply to
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
Report Post | Register to Reply
Scofield Netting Results In reply to
I'm just gonna throw this out there and y'all can make of it what you will. One of the most important considerations that you never see the bucket biologists talk about and you never see in any of the DWR REPORTS on management plans (not the plans themselves), is the BUDGET considerations. You can't manage anything without proper funding. It takes funding to develop management plans and more money to implement those plans.


Any path they take will cost money. How much? I don't have a clue. But I do have faith in the DWR processes and believe the DWR is taking the best path available based on ALL the factors involved INCLUDING budget constraints they have to live within.


So when you decide the DWR has made a HUGE mistake in managing a specific body of water, have you included or considered the budgeting factors they are operating under?


I have no clue which management plan (rotenone treatment vs selective stocking) was possible given a finite budget at the time the DWR developed their plan for Scofield. But I'm 100% certain the DWR knew exactly what each would cost and that the cost was factored into the decision making process.


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?

Smile
Bob Hicks, from Utah
I'm 77 years young and going as hard as I can for as long as I can.
“Free men don't ask permission to bear arms.” - Glen Aldrich
“Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't matter, and those who matter don’t mind.” - Dr. Seuss
Report Post | Register to Reply
Re: [dubob] Scofield Netting Results In reply to
dubob wrote:
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][/font]

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.



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

Report Post | Register to Reply
Re: [dubob] Scofield Netting Results In reply to
The current management plan was not created by the DWR; however, they definitely had input. A committee was formed and based upon the recommendation of the committee we have the current plan.

Link


"If I fished only to capture fish, my fishing trips would have ended long ago."
- Zane Grey
Report Post | Register to Reply
Re: [Joe_Dizzy] Scofield Netting Results In reply to
You wrote:

"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."

That is exactly the kind of information I needed to help me understand this issue better. Not surprising that it came from a fly fisherman. Thank you.

So does rotenone only kill fish, not insects and crustaceans or other life forms in a body of water?

~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~^~
((°> ~ ~ }<((((°> ~~ }<(((((°> ~ ~ }<((((°> ~ ~ }<((((°>
~~~}<(((((((((°< ><=;> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ }<((((°>

"Blessings upon all that hate contention, and love quietness, and virtue, and Angling." - Izaak Walton
Report Post | Register to Reply
Re: [kentofnsl] Scofield Netting Results In reply to
kentofnsl wrote:
The current management plan was not created by the DWR; however, they definitely had input. A committee was formed and based upon the recommendation of the committee we have the current plan.

Link


It is probably inaccurate to say that the plan was not created by the DWR. The advisory committee is set up by the DWR, headed up by the DWR, and guidance suggested by it are pretty much non binding. The evidence suggests that the current plan has been largely driven by the fishery managers overseeing Scofield.

While advisory committee members do not have the authority to "call the shots", it is a worthwhile experience if a person gets the opportunity to serve on one.


One last thing on your linked article. Unlike what was implied in the article, Rotenone was favored in the angler survey over no treatment by a 2 to 1 margin.





I caught you a delicious bass.
Report Post | Register to Reply
Re: [doggonefishin] Scofield Netting Results In reply to
doggonefishin wrote:

One last thing on your linked article. Unlike what was implied in the article, Rotenone was favored in the angler survey over no treatment by a 2 to 1 margin.

Are you trying to say that this statement was purposely written to sort of hide the reality of the responses from the anglers?

"Responses from some 2,500 anglers across Utah revealed strong public support for introducing new species to the reservoir. Doing another rotenone treatment received mixed support."


"If I fished only to capture fish, my fishing trips would have ended long ago."
- Zane Grey
Report Post | Register to Reply
Re: [doggonefishin] Scofield Netting Results In reply to
doggonefishin wrote:
One last thing on your linked article. Unlike what was implied in the article, Rotenone was favored in the angler survey over no treatment by a 2 to 1 margin.
☝︎☝︎☝︎☝︎☝︎☝︎☝︎☝︎☝︎☝︎☝︎☝


<{{{{°>


Fishrmn

"I tolerate with the utmost latitude the right of others to differ from me in opinion."
— Thomas Jefferson

"The difference between genius and stupidity is; genius has its limits."
— Albert Einstein
Report Post | Register to Reply
Re: [kentofnsl] Scofield Netting Results In reply to
kentofnsl wrote:
doggonefishin wrote:

One last thing on your linked article. Unlike what was implied in the article, Rotenone was favored in the angler survey over no treatment by a 2 to 1 margin.

Are you trying to say that this statement was purposely written to sort of hide the reality of the responses from the anglers?

"Responses from some 2,500 anglers across Utah revealed strong public support for introducing new species to the reservoir. Doing another rotenone treatment received mixed support."


I will let the reader draw their own conclusions.





I caught you a delicious bass.
Report Post | Register to Reply
Re: [doggonefishin] Scofield Netting Results In reply to
Smile

It reminds me of the story I heard about The Soviet Union and the U.S.A. The story goes that the United States and the Soviet Union had an auto race (the only two countries participating in the race). The auto from the U.S.A. won the race. The article in The Soviet Union newspaper read something like, "The United States and The Soviet Union were in the same automobile race. The automobile from The Soviet Union finished second and the automobile from the United States finished next to last."


"If I fished only to capture fish, my fishing trips would have ended long ago."
- Zane Grey
Report Post | Register to Reply
Re: [doggonefishin] Scofield Netting Results In reply to
doggonefishin wrote:


One last thing on your linked article. Unlike what was implied in the article, Rotenone was favored in the angler survey over no treatment by a 2 to 1 margin.


Perhaps a quote posted earlier would be appropriate here.

"Don't confuse me with facts, my mind is already made up." - Unknown


"If I fished only to capture fish, my fishing trips would have ended long ago."
- Zane Grey
(This post was edited by kentofnsl on May 21, 2019, 10:35 AM)
Report Post | Register to Reply
Re: [catchinon] Scofield Netting Results In reply to
catchinon wrote:

So does rotenone only kill fish, not insects and crustaceans or other life forms in a body of water?

Rotenone works by inhibiting the transfer of oxygen to cells. This affects any gill-breathing animals. Examples might include fish, insects, and amphibeans.

Rotenone is a naturally occuring chemical found in the roots of certain tropical and subtropical plants. The compound decomposes in sunlight, and lasts about 6 days in the environment, depending on several factors (temperature, ph, sunlight, etc.).

It is mildly toxic to humans. I know personally of one person who drank a glass of rotenone in concentrations used to treat fish (Panguitch Lake, specifically). I would not recommend doing that -- but it certainly did make a lasting impression.


https://rotenone.fisheries.org/



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

(This post was edited by PBH on May 21, 2019, 11:27 AM)
> > > >