Posts: 70
Threads: 5
Joined: Jun 2012
Reputation:
0
A friend and I were at Fish Lake yesterday. It was 7 degrees but clear and calm. That's right hardly any wind all day and when it got up to 30 it was time to take the coat off. I think even the fish were probably  at the lack of wind. We started early at Twin Creeks area to get some Splake and there were very few showing on the camera and the ones that did come in would come right to the jig and then just swim away. They just did not want anything we offered to them.
We changed over to rainbow fishing and there were some small rainbows willing to play but not as many as the usual. They were mostly cruising at 6-12 ft under the surface at 30 to 40 ft deep. We caught about 20 bows and just one perch at that location and had moved around quite a bit from 25 ft out to 45 ft and most of the action was around 30ft.
Things really slowed down around noon so we decided to hike over to the weed line out from Mackinaw campground to get into some perch. While camera fishing in 12-14 ft right on the weed line I saw all kinds of fish coming in and out. The small planter rainbows were very aggressive and we kept on catching those and there were also Splake coming in and scaring the perch away but they were not at all interested in our set up. At that point I was using the smaller pink ratfinkee tipped with perch eyes. The rainbows and perch were loving that and I was very disappointed to catch a couple of chubs. Are they supposed to be in there? See pic
Man I sure hope they don't multiply and take over. I left those stupid things on the ice for the eagles to snack on.
While watching the perch sneak out of the weeds I clearly saw on my camera a tagged perch. I was so excited! It even gave my ratfinkee a good look and a quick bump and swam off. Then a few minutes later it made its way over to my buddy's line and he pulled it up. See pic
Final count was 60 fish but kind of disappointed about the lack of big fish that we used to catch.
About 30 rainbows and 1 small Splake were returned to grow bigger, 2 chubs and A bunch of perch,the big ones for fish tacos and small ones for catfish bait.
We stopped by the store and my buddy turned in the tag for a prize.
Beautiful perfect day for fishing and the tagged fish made the day!
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
And that's probably the ONLY place in Utah where chubs are a good thing. They have been the primary forage for Mackinaw for decades. The introduction of perch, and the arrival of millfoil nearly crashed the whole system.
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF]
[signature]
Posts: 355
Threads: 32
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation:
3
I am surprised you got a prize for your tagged fish! On Presidents day my daughter caught 2 tagged fish. She went to collect a prize and was told that all the prizes had been given out! Big disappointment! Glad that you were able to collect! We had a lot of fun catching perch, splake, rainbows, but no Lake trout!
[signature]
Posts: 92
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
0
Chubs like that are just the right size for big lakers.
[signature]
Posts: 81
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2009
Reputation:
0
They did run out of prizes. But they said the DWR stopped by and brought them five more.
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
[quote fryman]... I was very disappointed to catch a couple of chubs. Are they supposed to be in there? See pic
Man I sure hope they don't multiply and take over. I left those stupid things on the ice for the eagles to snack on.
[/quote]
YES! Yes, chubs are supposed to be in there! It's those dam ned perch that shouldn't be in there!!
the whole reason there is no limit on perch, and they can be used as bait, and they can be wasted, and we have a fishing contest each year -- all are to reduce the perch. Perch are why chub populations have drastically reduced to the point that you hardly see them any more. Without chubs, lake trout are forced to eat something else, like rainbows and kokanee.
reduce (eliminate!) the perch and chubs would rebound which would then provide a better forage for lake trout which would result in anglers like you catching 10lb lake trout rather frequently.
Wouldn't that be nice??
instead, you are catching small fish that disappoint your expectations.
remove the scourge of perch, and improve that fishery!
Where are you using the perch as catfish bait?
[signature]
Posts: 1,395
Threads: 17
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
9
Chubs are a good thing at Fish Lake! Not the keeping them is bad or anything, but letting them go and putting them back in the lake would not have hurt a thing. Like was mentioned before, perch have become the scourge of Fish Lake. Chubs led to great lake trout and splake fishing! You should have used those chubs for bait!
[signature]
Posts: 905
Threads: 46
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
2
Chubs are so wonderful that every time Utah finds an abundance of them they spend another million or two on their only fall back plan, Rotenone and further Study. Unable to deal with an abundance of bait know as Chubs, messes up the feeding time fish tank philosophy that Utah relies on.
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
that's some well thought out thoughts dog-lover. Thanks for the input.
When was the last Panguitch Lake, or Strawberry Reservoir rotenone treatment? I think the plans implmented after those treatments have worked astonishingly well!
As for chubs in Fish Lake -- we have always known that chubs / redside shiners are an integral part of that system. It was only an illegal introduction of perch by anglers that screwed that up. How can you fault the DWR for the current management strategy at Fish Lake, which in many angler's opinions is working really well.
?
[signature]
Posts: 1,855
Threads: 14
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
2
They didn't even have to poison Starvation or Jordanelle for the chubs to get thinned out.
Depending on the ecology of the body of water chubs can be a good source of prey.
[signature]
Live to hunt----- Hunt to live.
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
[quote a_bow_nut]They didn't even have to poison Starvation or Jordanelle for the chubs to get thinned out. [/quote]
didn't have to, or didn't get the opportunity to?
You don't see many rotenone treatments anymore. This is due to the high cost, and the relative unpopularity of using rotenone. The effectiveness cannot be disputed. Rotenone is a very valuable tool for fisheries managers to use under the right circumstances. Unfortunately, anglers have nearly taken that tool away from our managers.
[quote a_bow_nut]Depending on the ecology of the body of water chubs can be a good source of prey.[/quote]
right.
[signature]
Posts: 905
Threads: 46
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
2
No criticism for fish lake, correct me if I'm wrong it's never seen Rotenone. I see the need for perch as a game fish and chubs as food for game fish. Can't speak for Panguitch but two treatments at Strawberry in my Lifetime once for Perch and once for Chubs to transition into Utah's Cutthroat Hatchery with chubs to boot. How many treatments for Scofield, is it four or five? At Taxpayers expense doing the same thing over and over seldom provides different results.
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
Scofield is doing exceptionally well with chubs. All the Tiger Trout are huge (not). The gill nets prove that there are very few Tigers over 14 inches long. The cutthroat are in excellent shape, if being the shape of a shoelace is excellent shape. Nobody goes fishing at Scofield now unless they're trying to take some Boy Scouts and just want something with fins on the end of their line, or they're going to get chubs to use for bait.
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF]
[signature]
Posts: 1,395
Threads: 17
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
9
[quote Dog-lover]No criticism for fish lake, correct me if I'm wrong it's never seen Rotenone. I see the need for perch as a game fish and chubs as food for game fish. Can't speak for Panguitch but two treatments at Strawberry in my Lifetime once for Perch and once for Chubs to transition into Utah's Cutthroat Hatchery with chubs to boot. How many treatments for Scofield, is it four or five? At Taxpayers expense doing the same thing over and over seldom provides different results.[/quote]
According to the American Fisheries Society's publication on rotenone, "for each dollar spent on rotenone and stocked trout, anglers gained from $32 to $105 worth of fishing. On trout lakes that were stocked but not treated, the gain from fish stocking alone was only $10 to $15."
Based on those numbers alone, the DWR has an obligation to consider treating waters that have chub problems. Also, FWIW, right before Strawberry was poisoned last, it was receiving between "250,000 to 300,00" angler recreation hours, and about 95% of the reservoir's production was nongame fish." Now, years after the poisoning, recreation hours are annually between 1,000,000 to 1,500,000 angler hours." Similarly, Schofield, like Strawberry has seen a dramatic decrease in angler hours and is in dire need of changes to once again become a viable sport fishery. To say otherwise is simply not looking at the facts. And, to imply that rotenone treatments are too costly....is simply naive and ignorant to the value of using rotenone as a management option.
[signature]
Posts: 905
Threads: 46
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
2
My point exactly, Rotenone Scofield 4 or 5 times now and over-run with chubs today. Not a very satisfactory outcome at a very high cost. You could call it a repetitive failure.
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
Or repetitive success. The current plan isn't working. The big Tigers were a one time thing. They don't have anything to get them over the 14 inch threshold. Once they get big enough to eat 6 or 7 inch chubs they've gotten truly large. But not enough of them to make it worthwhile for anyone to go there to target big Tigers.
Rotenone. Then create a fishery that will allow for angler interest and control of the chubs. Because what they have now is a ghost town. If they had instituted the slot limit and stocked Tigers early enough they wouldn't be where we are now.
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF]
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
[quote Dog-lover]My point exactly, Rotenone Scofield 4 or 5 times now and over-run with chubs today. Not a very satisfactory outcome at a very high cost. You could call it a repetitive failure.[/quote]
It's only a failure depending on the management objectives and goals of the treatment.
Do you have those objectives? (I don't)
I also don't have the info on the treatments. Were the treatments done in successive years (ie: 2 years in a row)?
Some fisheries have rotenone treatments as part of the management plan. Lakes like Johnson Reservoir were treated on a fairly regular basis. Those treatments would provide 4-5 years of good trout fishing, followed by a few bad years, then a couple years of nothing, followed again by 4-5 good years. The alternate is what we have today: no trout at all. No treatments mean no trout fishery at all. It has to be replaced with something else, or abandoned completely.
sometimes we reap exactly what we sow.
[signature]
Posts: 905
Threads: 46
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
2
Not sure how you get a dollar value for fishing that is not simply smoke and mirrors slanted to reflect the creator or an agency's agenda.
The population along the Wasatch front probably tripled since 1990 which directly contributes to increased angler hours on every body of water.
Scofield definitely needs more water and something different that has been done 4-5 times (Rotenone) with the same failed result.
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
What are you calling a failure? 20 years of great fishin'? Or what we have now? If the UDWR had treated Scofield with rotenone in 2014 we'd have an excellent fishery now. But what we have is the worst fishery in the state. Have we had any reports of good fishin' from Scofield, other than for chubs, in the last 3 years? Nope.
[red]⫸[/red][orange]<{[/orange][yellow]{{[/yellow][green]{{[/green][size 4][blue]⦇[/blue][/size][blue]°[/blue][#8000FF]>[/#8000FF]
[signature]
Posts: 1,395
Threads: 17
Joined: Sep 2003
Reputation:
9
I will look for the specific study done to determine the dollar values--it was a Washington State study and not done in Utah by the way. Ultimately though, Utah can show through their own creel surveys significant increases and declines in angler hours at specific waters. If you look at the situations at Strawberry and Schofield and even Panguitch for that matter, what you find is that angler hours dramatically decrease as the biomass begins to slant heavier and heavier to high chub biomass within the fishery. Part of the cost effectiveness of using rotenone is tied to the number of anglers utilizing the fishery before and after rotenone treatments. In all of the above examples, angler hours increase dramatically immediately following treatments. This is certainly not tied to population increases.
To put it another way, I remember the last treatment process at Panguitch lake. During that process, several of the local business owners were adamantly against a rotenone treatment because they feared they would lose business. However, one owner was able to sway the rest when he began to explain that he couldn't afford the reservoir to go another year without it. The biomass at the lake was comprised of over 95% chubs and his business was declining on a yearly basis because anglers weren't coming to the lake--fishing was bad. Immediately following the treatment, though, anglers returned and business has been booming ever since. In fact, if you look at the economic growth surrounding that reservoir since the treatment it is obvious that fishing has been good.
Overall, rotenone treatments are certainly cost effective when anglers have decline in dramatic fashion as in the Strawberry case and in the Schofield case. The dollars spent on such treatments are made back up in increased angling hours. The question you should ask is how much money do we lose when fishing deteriorates to a point when a fishery is no longer being utilized.
[signature]
|
