Posts: 1,984
Threads: 16
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation:
7
It seems that the crux of the matter is that Strawberry anglers want two things, Trophy size fish, plus being able to harvest a limit of said fish, ain't going to happen. It is very difficult to manage a species for both growth and numbers, without having a large breeding population. Even then, you have to have sufficient forage to support the numbers.
Look at Lake Powell Stripers. In the late 70's early 80's, you had a huge forage base in Powell. Striper size was way up, 10 - 15 lb fish not uncommon. The numbers were there also, to the point that the Stripers decimated their forage, the population crashed. 20 years later, the forage is coming back, the numbers are still up and the size is starting to increase, slowly. Right now, Stripers at Powell are a numbers game, with a few bigger fish thrown in.
At Strawberry, forage will be the limiting factor. Until the stocked fish make it over the 'hump' and move from zoo plankton to small fish, forage will be the limiting factor on numbers and size. Fisherman will have to decide on which is most important to them, quality or quantity.
By the way, the reason that PBH makes so much sense is that he is a BIOLOGIST who knows what he is talking about !!! Listen to him and learn !!!!
Posts: 2,501
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
Re"At Strawberry, forage will be the limiting factor."
With rainbows, I would have to disagree here. The limiting factor with the bows is that they are harvested at a high rate before they can reach large size. Bows are fully capable of reaching good size there and do if they survive the harvesting. Even the big cutts eat a significant amount of zooplankton. (per a study by the DWR a few years ago.) The thing is, the rainbow harvest is by design. The DWR and a whole bunch of anglers want it this way. The last Central open house had several anglers wanting more bows and/or elimination of the slot for cutts.
RE: "Fisherman will have to decide on which is most important to them, quality or quantity."
This is spot on.
Finally, Re: "By the way, the reason that PBH makes so much sense is that he is a BIOLOGIST who knows what he is talking about !!! Listen to him and learn !!!!"
Family members, yes, are biologists but I think PBH is a computer guy. You are right that he knows what he's talking about but don't give him a big head.[  ]
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
[quote doggonefishin]
Family members, yes, are biologists but I think PBH is a computer geek. [/quote]
Fixed it. At least that's what my kids call me.
(I don't have a clue what I'm talking about. I just fake my way through)
[signature]
Posts: 1,984
Threads: 16
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation:
7
My bad, I thought you worked for DWR. Doggone's point about harvesting rainbows quickly makes my point. They are managed for quantity rather than quality. Large numbers are stocked so that there are large numbers to be harvested. The carrying capacity of the 'land' is a finite quantity, meaning you can only put so much biomass on a given range/water. All the mouths compete for the available food, limiting the amount that each individual can grow by limiting the food supply. Reduce the number of mouths and you increase the size any given individual can attain by increasing the amount of available food. Other factors also play into this, but overall, you can have, say 100lbs of fish flesh per acre of water. That can be in 1 - 100lb fish, 2 - 50lb fish, 100 - 1lb fish, or 200 - 1/2lb fish. It all depends on what you want, quantity or quality !! A good example of this is Utah Lake. They are reducing the carp population, to increase the food supply and reduce the negative effects of carp on the ecosystem, to better allow the June Sucker to survive out there. About 85 % of the biomass of the lake is in carp !! So if you want quality, you will have fewer numbers, if you want quantity, you will have lower quality !!
Again, apologies to PBH for calling him a Biologist !!
Posts: 19,235
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
1
Sadly, Henry's is going quantity as well. They planted large numbers and extended the season, but people didn't keep the numbers they expected. People want QUALITY and not keeping the small guys. Problem is, they can't get big because there are now too many of them. Crazy. Does not make sense to try to please the quantity people with a blue ribbon fishery.
[signature]
Posts: 639
Threads: 1
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation:
0
flygoddess wrote:[/quote]
Sadly, Henry's is going quantity as well. They planted large numbers and extended the season, but people didn't keep the numbers they expected. People want QUALITY and not keeping the small guys. Problem is, they can't get big because there are now too many of them. Crazy. Does not make sense to try to please the quantity people with a blue ribbon fishery.[/quote]
Unfortunately, it does seem that Henrys is turning out that way. I still will probably fish the opening chaos this year.
[signature]
Posts: 19,235
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
1
I say go for it, and keep your limit each trip[cool] Seriously, that is what they want. And "I" want you to catch the stillwater trout of a life time[  ]
[signature]
Posts: 1,299
Threads: 1
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation:
0
If you're going to plant something different in the berry I say make it walleye.
[signature]
Posts: 11
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2011
Reputation:
0
Trying to find as easy way of putting this .....
Move along nothing to see here... Just someone who wants to change something for himself.
Tigers in Strawberry What a joke.....
[signature]
Posts: 817
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation:
0
Kamloops with a restriction. The die hard anglers at Strawberry dealt with the cutt restrictions- at first resisting, then when they saw the results, became the biggest supporters. Put a slot on kamloops, like the cutts and maybe a trophy lake. I sincerly doubt it would come to fruition, but wishfull thinking.
The Gerrard strain has been in Idaho stillwaters for a long time. Utah waters aren't that much different I wouldn't think.
They planted them in, of all places, Mantua years ago. Clipped the adipose so you had to throw them back, but Mantua, seriously, is a piss poor body of water to plant those fish in.
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
Quote:Armed with these physical differences and the stories of their stamina, strength, and size, Dr. Jordan believed he had a new species of trout. He gave it the scientific name Salmo kamloops or Kamloops Trout. With an official name, the legend of the Kamloops Trout had begun.
Over the next 30 years, a couple of small fish hatcheries were established, some of the smaller lakes were stocked with Kamloops Trout and a commercial fishery was even started on the larger lakes in the area. Lakes such as Kamloops, Kootenay and Shuswap Lakes were producing fish that averaged about ten pounds. And there were stories of fish from 30 to 55 pounds, such as the big one from Jewel Lake. Fly fishers started to fish the newly stocked but smaller lakes. Kamloops Trout of 15 to 18 pounds were being caught from lakes after the third year of stocking. Salmo kamloops was becoming known to wealthy anglers around the world.
Then in 1931 a Dr. Mottley began to study the Kamloops Trout. He discovered that the differences in Salmo Gairdneri and Salmo Kamloops were due to environmental conditions rather than genetic differences. He had found that the spawning streams in south central British Columbia were about 9 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than most spawning streams around the world.
He conducted an experiment in which Kamloops Trout eggs from the same fish were hatched and raised in two different environments. One set of eggs were hatched and raised at the normal stream temperatures around Kamloops and the second set were hatched and raised in waters 9 degrees warmer than would normally be expected in the local spawning streams. Those fish raised in the warmer water did not develop the extra scale rows and other physical differences of Salmo Kamloops. He had raised both types of fish from the same batch of eggs and thus proven that Salmo Gairdneri and Salmo Kamloops were indeed the same fish. The differences were environmental rather than genetic.
Kamloops are just rainbows. Rainbows that [red][size 6]DON'T[/size][/red] have to compete with, nor eat chubs.
[signature]
Posts: 817
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation:
0
[quote Fishrmn] Quote:Armed with these physical differences and the stories of their stamina, strength, and size, Dr. Jordan believed he had a new species of trout. He gave it the scientific name Salmo kamloops or Kamloops Trout. With an official name, the legend of the Kamloops Trout had begun.
Over the next 30 years, a couple of small fish hatcheries were established, some of the smaller lakes were stocked with Kamloops Trout and a commercial fishery was even started on the larger lakes in the area. Lakes such as Kamloops, Kootenay and Shuswap Lakes were producing fish that averaged about ten pounds. And there were stories of fish from 30 to 55 pounds, such as the big one from Jewel Lake. Fly fishers started to fish the newly stocked but smaller lakes. Kamloops Trout of 15 to 18 pounds were being caught from lakes after the third year of stocking. Salmo kamloops was becoming known to wealthy anglers around the world.
Then in 1931 a Dr. Mottley began to study the Kamloops Trout. He discovered that the differences in Salmo Gairdneri and Salmo Kamloops were due to environmental conditions rather than genetic differences. He had found that the spawning streams in south central British Columbia were about 9 degrees Fahrenheit cooler than most spawning streams around the world.
He conducted an experiment in which Kamloops Trout eggs from the same fish were hatched and raised in two different environments. One set of eggs were hatched and raised at the normal stream temperatures around Kamloops and the second set were hatched and raised in waters 9 degrees warmer than would normally be expected in the local spawning streams. Those fish raised in the warmer water did not develop the extra scale rows and other physical differences of Salmo Kamloops. He had raised both types of fish from the same batch of eggs and thus proven that Salmo Gairdneri and Salmo Kamloops were indeed the same fish. The differences were environmental rather than genetic.
Kamloops are just rainbows. Rainbows that [red][size 6]DON'T[/size][/red] have to compete with, nor eat chubs.[/quote]
A Maseratii is just a car and Michael Jordan was just a basketball player.
[signature]
Posts: 1,734
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2007
Reputation:
0
Ya big kamloops feed on Kokanee. Go ahead, stock 'em in Strawberry, Flaming gorge, Porcupine and Causey. Those salmon lovers would really go for that....not!
[signature]
Posts: 771
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
well still more people have went out of their way to sign then to complain so this is a plus
[signature]
Posts: 817
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation:
0
[quote brookieguy1]Ya big kamloops feed on Kokanee. Go ahead, stock 'em in Strawberry, Flaming gorge, Porcupine and Causey. Those salmon lovers would really go for that....not![/quote]
They're already in the Gorge.
[signature]
Posts: 817
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation:
0
[quote duckdog1us]well still more people have went out of their way to sign then to complain so this is a plus[/quote]
I wouldn't call it "out of their way"', but more power to you and your petition. Good luck.
BTW, where are the total # of sigs at?
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
[quote flygoddess]Sadly, Henry's is going quantity as well. They planted large numbers and extended the season, but people didn't keep the numbers they expected. People want QUALITY and not keeping the small guys. Problem is, they can't get big because there are now too many of them. Crazy. Does not make sense to try to please the quantity people with a blue ribbon fishery.[/quote]
So, you mean to tell me that in order for some fish to grow larger that anglers should harvest more fish? Wow!! Amazing concept!
sounds a bit like the Provo River and the brown trout population!
Therapist -- you are close. Your concept is on the money, but I don't believe that the problem at Strawberry is based on this concept. Why? Because you don't have a "full bucket" at Strawberry. Strawberry has the food base for the trout. The problem at Strawberry is harvest. The rainbows get yanked out of there before they ever have a chance to grow big. More harvest (or mortality) at Strawberry is not the answer. In this particular case, the fishery is managed as a "put and take". The rainbows are stocked in large quantities so that anglers can harvest large quantities.
Now, if you cut back on stocking, you very well might increase the average size of rainbows. The reason would be due to lower catch rates. Lower catch rates could increase the size -- but is that what anglers really want??
Henry's Lake is a pretty hard lake to compare any Utah lakes to. It is a very large surface area, shallow, fertile lake. Comparing that to steep sided, deep reservoirs that experience dramatic water level fluctuations, like most of our reservoirs in Utah, is a pretty tough comparison to make.
[signature]
Posts: 1,964
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
Didn't see an option to vote against the petition. Looked to me like you can either sign it or not.
[signature]
Posts: 1,256
Threads: 2
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation:
0
This is a moot point, tigers are already in strawberry,and have been caught near the ladders.Hope i didn,t ruin anyones day.i'm for them they eat chubs and don't reproduce so no harm no foul. imho.tight lines see ya on the water.[fishin]
[signature]
Posts: 771
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2011
Reputation:
0
yes tigers are in there i have caught a dozen or more in the last year just like to see a few more
[signature]
|
