# Tiger Trout in the Uintas



## RnF

So there is clearly a tiger trout movement going on in Utah right now. At first I thought they were kind of cool, even went out and caught some 26+ inchers. After a few years the novelty has worn off for me. In fact, I now find them to be ugly and really out of place in this beautiful state. The nail was put in the coffin for me after a recent trip into the Uintas. It just didn't feel right to be catching these fish at 10,000+ feet. I would have rather been catching stunted brook trout.

Maybe they are more hardy than cutt's or brookies or easier to control populations since they don't reproduce, hence producing bigger fish because there aren't too many because of over population? Is this our "Golden Trout" (see wind rivers range, wy) of the future, big fish at high altitude?

Does anyone here have more insight on this? I think tigers are a novelty fish, a gimmick if you would say. I think it is a mistake these fish are getting put into the Uintas. 

The good thing is, if the DNR ever changes it's minds, they just have to stop stocking them and they will all eventually die off since they are sterile. I just wonder out of the 2000 species of trout the DNR choose to go with Tiger Trout?

This is all personal opinion, but wondering if anyone else shares the same feelings I do.


----------



## swbuckmaster

You put a large enough predator in a brookie lake and it just might be able to control them so you can actually catch a brookie worth catching. Thats my take.

I dont see a problem with them. In fact i think they are a better fighter then a cutthroat sock fish


----------



## sawsman

I hear what you're saying RnF. However, I would much rather catch a healthy tiger over a stunted brookie. Now, a fat brookie or brown on the other hand…

It sure seems like they are everywhere now days. I've caught some real ugly and deformed ones, but I've caught some absolutely gorgeous ones as well.

I think they're hear to stay, but I wish they would keep them at less than 10,000' as well. Leave that high country for brookies and grayling.


----------



## drsx

sawsman said:


> I hear what you're saying RnF. However, I would much rather catch a healthy tiger over a stunted brookie. Now, a fat brookie or brown on the other hand&#8230;
> 
> It sure seems like they are everywhere now days. I've caught some real ugly and deformed ones, but I've caught some absolutely gorgeous ones as well.
> 
> I think they're hear to stay, but I wish they would keep them at less than 10,000' as well. Leave that high country for brookies and grayling.


Great response. I agree on all accounts.


----------



## Catherder

RnF said:


> At first I thought they were kind of cool, even went out and caught some 26+ inchers. After a few years the novelty has worn off for me. In fact, I now find them to be ugly and really out of place in this beautiful state. The nail was put in the coffin for me after a recent trip into the Uintas. It just didn't feel right to be catching these fish at 10,000+ feet. I would have rather been catching stunted brook trout.


Your experience and sentiments almost exactly dovetail mine. The novelty of tigers wore off after 2-3 years. I will admit that my biggest isn't 26 though. :_O=: 

I couldn't agree more about the 10,000 ft thing. On a recent Uintas trip to a lake producing nice quality cutts at 10,900+ ft, I caught a couple of 3-4 inch tigers that apparently were recently stocked. Goob and I both were tempted to chuck them on the bank. We didn't, but it was kind of a letdown in this lake with nice, healthy non-stunted cutts to find frankenfish in it. What I've noticed is that the DWR doesn't put them in lakes managed for brookies as much as they are used in conjunction with cutts in "cutt" lakes. Maybe the DWR is low on stockable cutts of suitable strains for the Uintas?

As for stunted brookies, I would rather see more effort going in to planting sterile brookies as opposed to the tigers. I understand this is about to happen.

I have no problem however, with tigers being stocked in the roadside lakes in the Uintas. They are perfectly suitable for that purpose and may not as easily be seined out as fast by the masses as the planter bows, extending the resource some and giving some variety in these spots. That said, I agree with you, RnF, keep them out of the backcountry.


----------



## brookieguy1

Looks like my sentiments towards tiger trout are starting to spread. I think the novelty wore off on me quite a bit quicker than most folks, maybe because I started chasing them madly about 10 years ago. A big tiger is still a good fish, but not nearly as great as either a brown or brook of equal size. 
Good news for folks that have somewhat negative sentiments towards tigers in the alpine lakes though. Sterile brookies are now the norm for the Uintas. 
I do feel the tigers were a better solution than albinos or over-stocking brook trout in lakes already suffering from stunting. Many Uinta lakes are showing how lower numbers of brook trout can help the fishery. Due to the Kamas hatchery problems, no brook trout have been stocked for 2 years in the Uintas. I and other brook trout hunters have found some eye-popping specimens this year due to the lower populations. With sterile brook trout, these conditions can continue and be controlled.


----------



## Bscuderi

I dono how I feel about it yet if u think about it they are just new I bet people may have had the same feeling about grayling not belonging or brookies for that matter as the cutthroat is the only native fish. But now people think of brookies and grayling as natives of the area. I think sometimes the tigers can be beautiful and that's cool there numbers are controllable they grow fast etc. but I do believe brooke trout are more beautiful and there tasty pink flesh Is the best!!! I will admit that I have been disappointed a couple times catching small planter tigers when I felt I was deep in the backcountry in brookie or cutthroat territory. It kinda made me feel like I was just at trial or mirror lake. But I've also been to plenty of lakes where there was not much life at all and it would be nice to catch something! I think a delicate balance needs to be achieved as bigger fish = less fish. Some of the lakes should start to get a more trophy management approach so we can have awesome lakes like down south. But I'll be the first to admit I'd be very sad if all the highly populated brookie lakes were to disappear there's something very memory making about slaying fish on every cast and seeing that aggression in there feeding


----------



## LOAH

I'm totally fine with tigers being in the Uintas, but I don't think they need to be everywhere. A select few lakes per drainage seems fine to me.

They're still a really fun fish to fight and great to eat. It's just another species to hook into where you'd otherwise catch nubby-finned hatchery rainbows or snaky little brookies.

I'm pleased to see the lean toward sterile brooks though. That's a solid plan and should change the face of what most expect when they think of the Uintas. 

Having one of the best tiger trout programs around, it's inevitable that the state of Utah will stock them all over the place.

I'm still a fan of big tigers, though the novelty of them has worn off quite a bit. It's a thrill to catch anything, so I don't entirely mind. No need to put them everywhere though.

Maybe each drainage could have one or two tiger lakes way up high, at intermediate elevations, and farther downstream.

All I know is that I don't hate them. I'll take a drag peeling tiger over a planter bow any day of the week though.


----------



## ColdWaterCoord

Hello all. I just thought I would provide a little background on the tiger trout question. Tigers were one of the first sterile fish that were widely available in the state and have been used in many areas of the Uintas and other places to provide a sportfishery in cutthroat trout conservation areas. They are also effective predators and have been used to manage unwanted species in some areas.

Managing sport fisheries is a balancing act between providing recreation and the need to protect native species. Tiger trout have been an important tool in that effort. As the Division gets more "things" in our tool box, more options are possible.

Anglers can make their wishes known with regard to species stocked or regulations on a particular water by contacting the Aquatics Manager in the region responsible for the management of the water. There may be reasons why we may not always be able to accommodate every request, but we will do our best to listen.

Thanks for your interest in fishing in Utah,

Paul Birdsey
Coldwater Sportfish Coordinator, UDWR


----------



## Grandpa D

Paul,
Thank you for taking the time to respond on the Forum.
It's always nice to get first hand information direct from the UDWR.


----------



## RnF

Thanks for the responses everyone.

Paul, thank you for your response. It is helping me understand what is going on better. I like it a bit more now, but I do have a couple questions about putting Tigers in Cutthroat waters. 

You say the Tigers provide a sport fishery in Cutthroat Conservation areas. Aren't Cutthroats considered a sport fish already? What do you mean by sport fish with Tigers in mind and being in Cutthroat waters?

How do the Tiger Trout help the Cutthroat Trout? It seems to me the Tiger Trout would be in direct competition with Cutthroats and therefore would actually hurt the Cutts more than help by eating the food source. Wouldn't it be better for the Cutts to be by themselves?

I am actually ok with them being put with Brook Trout waters to help curb the populations where reproduction is taking place, but I mainly have concerns about them being put with Cutts.

Thanks.


----------



## Fishrmn

In many waters they require you to release Cutthroats, or trout with Cutthroat markings. It is probably easier for some folks to distinguish between Tiger Trout and Cutthroat Trout. The Tigers provide a fish that can be harvested, and is easy to control. And they don't develop a slash mark under their jaws. _(O)_


----------



## tye dye twins

You guys sound so freaking old when you say "the novelty has worn off". I think they are the most beautiful trout in Utah and hope to see them everywhere. They taste great, look great, fight great, etc. 

I was up at Loafty on sunday and my twin told me the only species in there was cuttys. I was dissapointed till I saw a tiger trout along the shore following my gear. Sure enough it put a smile on my face! 

The only argument I can see here from you guys is that they compete with a species you desire more. Not a good reason to change management plans IMO.


----------



## ColdWaterCoord

RnF,

You are correct that tigers may compete with cutthroat in some waters, but as Fishermn pointed out, they can also provide a harvestable fish in those waters that are catch and release for cutthroat. It really is about trying to balance the possible negative effects against the positive. Having worked for the UDWR for nearly 27 years, I can tell you that having a tool like tiger trout has made it a lot easier to pursue cutthroat trout conservation efforts throughout the last 15 years.

Paul


----------



## EvilTyeDyeTwin

I am a fan of Tiger Trout......they fight great, taste even better and have some of the most beautiful colors a trout can offer. Due to those reasons it is hard to get "tired" of catching them....the only thing I get tired of is Rainbow Trout...those things are everywhere!


----------



## LOAH

When someone says "the novelty" is gone. It doesn't necessarily mean they dislike the fish. They're just saying that the cool "new" fish is no longer that to them, but just another species in the soup bowl.

I like them quite a bit. Enough to drive all over the place to chase them around. Mmm, mmm, tasty!

Some of those cutthroat spots are doing pretty well nowadays and tigers likely play an important role in maintaining that.

Not every lake needs tigers though. That's for sure.


----------



## HighmtnFish

I have never liked tiger trout, yea they are kind of cool looking and they grow big in certain waters, but it feels strange to me to catch a science experiment, or a test tube baby, out of a natural high mountain lake or stream. Tiger trout are freaks of nature, its like genetically altering deer or elk so that they grow abnormally large and funky looking horns then planting them in our mountains, i guess it would be cool for a while but it's not right.
I agree with earlier comments, I would like to see more sterile brook trout planted in these high mountain lakes rather than tiger trout. If managed correctly, Brookies can grow as heavy, maybe not as long, and they fight just a hard and taste better.


----------



## wyoming2utah

HighmtnFish said:


> I agree with earlier comments, I would like to see more sterile brook trout planted in these high mountain lakes rather than tiger trout. If managed correctly, Brookies can grow as heavy, maybe not as long, and they fight just a hard and taste better.


Wait a second....tiger trout are a science experiment but sterile brook trout are not? You're joking, right? I don't understand the sentiment of some that raising rainbows, cutts, browns, and brookies and then stocking them at 10,000+ feet is ok but raising a tiger trout and doing the same is not...tiger trout like other hybrids do occur naturally in the wild. So, what is the difference? By the same account is a cuttbow also a frankenfish when stocked by Idaho in Henry's Lake?

My opinion: I would much rather have tiger trout in a lake than any other stunted trout. I would much rather have a population of tiger trout in a lake or stream than very few cutthroat while waiting for cutts to establish a viable fishery. And, admittedly, when fishing in the high country it is sure nice to have an option to take some back to camp for dinner!


----------



## tye dye twins

HighmtnFish said:


> but it feels strange to me to catch a science experiment, or a test tube baby, out of a natural high mountain lake or stream. Tiger trout are freaks of nature, its like genetically altering deer or elk so that they grow abnormally large and funky looking horns then planting them in our mountains, i guess it would be cool for a while but it's not right.


What a tick! Technically there were a handful of browns and brooks that natuarally crossed creating the tiger trout in nauture. Now there wasn't a whole lot but it did happen in nature 1st. So it isn;t exactly a man made freak. Mamma nature was responsible for the tiger trout and not exactly our genetical engineering biologists.


----------



## Grandpa D

I like um and I also like Wiper and Tiger Muskie.
Thank you UDWR.


----------



## Brookie

what about splake now there is a nice fish. anyways let do a real science experiment plant all the main trout species in all high mountain lakes and after 5 to10 years which ever species survives is the one that gets help from the division. if we want it even more correct we could blow up the dams other than the beaver ones of course. Now this would be fun a real survival of the fittest experiment. Sounds good right, which species do you guys think would make it. By the way Tigers are not the best eating Trout and splake, brook, browns and even Colorado cuts fit harder for longer time period than tigers. yep a tiger is still better than nothing I Guess


----------



## HighmtnFish

I can argue both sides of this discussion. I know that tiger trout have been found occurring naturally in areas of the Midwest, areas of Wisconsin to be more specific. So for those morons who think that tiger trout are some sort of "frankenfish" or science experiment they are wrong. Tiger trout do occur naturally, just not in Utah. So if we don't want to plant tiger trout here then why don't we get rid of all non native trout species: splake, lake trout, browns, rainbows, and brook trout. We should only plant Bonneville cutts and Colorado river cutts, and only in their native areas. It's either all or none because any fish that is not native to Utah is a freak of nature. Man had to alter something to get them here. 
The truth is I like brook trout better than tiger trout and i am disappointed with the poor management of brook trout on the Boulder Mountain and surrounding areas. It seems some of the brook trout lakes are being planted with too many fish too often. It's as if the people in charge in the Cedar City office are trying to overpopulate certain lakes with brook trout on purpose. If fewer brook trout were planted and if they were planted every 2 or 3 years, like the tiger trout, then I think the quality of fish would increase and there would still be plenty of fish to catch as well. I would also like to see more sterile brook trout planted in place of tiger trout in some of the cutthroat lakes. But that's just my 2 cents.


----------



## Catherder

A few more comments on this.

1. First off, most of the opinions expressed here, both pro and con, are simply personal preferences. I don't have any problem with someone who loves tigers and wants more of them everywhere. I prefer to catch cutts and brookies in the high country. So be it. LOAH quite eloquently expressed my view on the novelty aspect earlier. I don't mind catching tigers at Scofield and some other places where management has dictated their use. But it isn't a red letter event anymore though.

2.


HighmtnFish said:


> So for those morons who think that tiger trout are some sort of "frankenfish" or science experiment they are wrong. Tiger trout do occur naturally, just not in Utah.


Actually, one natural tiger was apparently documented here. However, it *is* extremely rare in nature, unlike a host of much more common hybridizations, (including splake.) and requires considerable human manipulation for commercially viable amounts of yield to be achieved. So if you want to call me a moron for using the term, fine, but with the above facts being what they are, I'll still use the term. :evil: Whether they represent "more" of a "frankenfish" than a sterile triploid brookie or rainbow is another matter. They probably are not.

3.


wyoming2utah said:


> I would much rather have a population of tiger trout in a lake or stream than very few cutthroat while waiting for cutts to establish a viable fishery. And, admittedly, when fishing in the high country it is sure nice to have an option to take some back to camp for dinner!


I earlier expressed dismay about fishing a couple of high country lakes and finding some tiger fingerlings planted there. I agree with all of your points you expressed, however, lets look at the 2 lakes we were fishing and see if the above applied.

A) The lakes had a healthy population of cutts. Definitely viable and with the size of some of the fish, an excellent cutt fishery.

B) There were no harvest restrictions on cutts at these lakes.

C) As far as I know, these lakes are not used for brood stock.

So none of the above arguments applied where I was talking about. It was as if the management plan was to change these lakes from cutts to tigers. Since I hate to see an awesome cutt fishery disappear there, I have every right to be disappointed, based on my preferences. If it was that the suitable strains of cutts were not available to plant at that time, then I understand, but hope it changes in the future.


----------



## wyogoob

This is what I want:

1. No Tigers in Continent and Milk lakes.
2. More golden trout.
3. Take one of the "numbered" lakes up in the top of the Bear River drainage and name it "Lake David" for brookieguy1....uh...throw in a "Lake Catherder" too; has a nice ring to it.
4. Less money spent on fish in the Uintas and more on White-tailed Ptarmigan and drought-resistant wildflowers.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Catherder said:


> 3.
> 
> 
> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would much rather have a population of tiger trout in a lake or stream than very few cutthroat while waiting for cutts to establish a viable fishery. And, admittedly, when fishing in the high country it is sure nice to have an option to take some back to camp for dinner!
> 
> 
> 
> I earlier expressed dismay about fishing a couple of high country lakes and finding some tiger fingerlings planted there. I agree with all of your points you expressed, however, lets look at the 2 lakes we were fishing and see if the above applied.
> 
> A) The lakes had a healthy population of cutts. Definitely viable and with the size of some of the fish, an excellent cutt fishery.
> 
> B) There were no harvest restrictions on cutts at these lakes.
> 
> C) As far as I know, these lakes are not used for brood stock.
> 
> So none of the above arguments applied where I was talking about. It was as if the management plan was to change these lakes from cutts to tigers. Since I hate to see an awesome cutt fishery disappear there, I have every right to be disappointed, based on my preferences. If it was that the suitable strains of cutts were not available to plant at that time, then I understand, but hope it changes in the future.
Click to expand...

It seems you are making an assumption--you are assuming that the stocking of fingerling tiger trout is for the purpose of replacing cutthroat trout. I think you should talk to the biologists in charge of this area before making such an assumption. The tiger trout could have been stocked for other reasons as well--diversity (I know a lot of lakes where multiple fish species are stocked simply to add diversity to the catch), lack of enough cutts to stock the lakes (Sometimes, the number of cutts produced by brood stock lakes is not enough to cover the needs of managers. It is possible that tiger fingerling were stocked to fill in the gap of a missing year class of cutthroat.), and it is also possible that a mistake was made--I can think of several examples including one on the Uintas and some on the Boulder where airplane pilots mistakenly dropped the wrong bunch of fish in the wrong lake (in some of these examples, the results were disastrous.).

Again, I would simply suggest finding out the reasoning these tigers were stocked without assuming that the cutt program at the lake is ending...


----------



## wyoming2utah

HighmtnFish said:


> The truth is I like brook trout better than tiger trout and i am disappointed with the poor management of brook trout on the Boulder Mountain and surrounding areas. It seems some of the brook trout lakes are being planted with too many fish too often. It's as if the people in charge in the Cedar City office are trying to overpopulate certain lakes with brook trout on purpose.


Well....that is an interesting thought. I know the people in charge in Cedar City very well...I can tell you one thing for certain--they have no desire to overpopulate any of the lakes on the mountain with brook trout. I would also be very interested to know which lakes you think have been overstocked...although I am not 100% certain, I would be willing to bet that most of the brook trout stocking on the Boulder and the surrounding areas has remained very consistent for the past 30+ years...I also know that the populations in the lakes on the Boulder fluctuate from year to year very much because of the winterkill factor and water levels. Oak Creek Reservoir, for example, can be a trophy brook trout fishery one year and in the space of just one more year can be loaded with small brook trout without a single fish being stocked. To me, that is part of the beauty of the mountain. Until the fire above Bicknell/Torrey this past June, some of the biggest brook trout on the mountain were in Coleman Reservoir...not one that most people think of when looking for big brook trout. But, conditions allowed it to grow big fish. That is what is fun about the lakes up there....things change so much.

Interestingly, the lakes that have been renovated and now stocked with tiger trout, splake, and cutthroat are some of the most heavily fished lakes on the mountain now...!


----------



## PBH

HighmtnFish said:


> It's as if the people in charge in the Cedar City office are trying to overpopulate certain lakes with brook trout on purpose.


interesting theory.

What many people fail to consider is that our fisheries managers are also fishermen. In fact, I would wager that most of our fisheries biologists and managers got into that field of work because they loved to fish. It makes me wonder why on Earth would a manager, especially one who grew up fishing the Boulder Mountain and targeting large brook trout, ever intentionally try to overpopulate a lake with brook trout? It just doesn't make sense. In fact, it would make more sense that a manager would intentionally do whatever he could in order to grow more LARGE brook trout. That makes sense.

But, whatever floats your boat. Carry on with the conspiracy theory. It makes for good entertainment.

Tiger trout do fill a niche. Their application can be a good management tool. I do believe that their popularity has been a bit overwhelming, and that the DWR has certainly exploited that popularity. The ease of making tiger trout in hatcheries has made it possible to use them in numerous waters. Maybe now that the success rate of creating triploid brook trout has increased we'll start seeing more applications of these sterile brook trout as opposed to more applications of tiger trout? I can only imagine how nice it would be to a place like Oak Creek full of sterile brook trout (vs. fertile brook trout)!


----------



## cfbiologist

I can't Speak for The southern Region, however I will speak for our Region up North. Yes you are seeing more tigers in more places for good reason. 
1. Cutthroat
We do not have an adequate brood stock of proper strains of Cutthroat for the Uintas.
( Bear River or Colorado) After doing alot of genetic work, it was decided in the 1990's that we would only stock Native strains in there repective drainages. and stop dropping yellowstone, and Bear Lake strains everywhere. Well some of those historic Cutthroat Lakes had not been stocked for Years. And we felt we owned it to anglers to create better fisheries, so Take Red Castle lake for instant. it had not been stocked since 1995. So we decided to use Tiger trout in 2008 in there place under reduced stocking numbers. These fish are sterile, so when we do shift back to Cutthroat (and we will as soon as brood stock is secured) we can phase the TG trout out, and be able to put cutthroat back in there native drainages.That is why you see more Tigers in historical Cutthroat waters.

2. BK waters
THe main reason you see TG in BK waters is 1) we put them there becasue we felt it was needed to help reduce Bk numbers and we are using them as a Biological tool. 2) Create more TG opportunity because they do so well in the Uintas, and other species in the past never created the fishery we felt that water could be. 3) they found there way in from other waters.

We are now using other tools in the Uintas such as Sterile BK from now on, and this year was the first year that all BK stocked in the Uintas were sterile. Even though they are not on the stocking database yet, they were stocked this year.

Wes


----------



## Catherder

cfbiologist said:


> I can't Speak for The southern Region, however I will speak for our Region up North. Yes you are seeing more tigers in more places for good reason.
> 1. Cutthroat
> We do not have an adequate brood stock of proper strains of Cutthroat for the Uintas.
> ( Bear River or Colorado) After doing alot of genetic work, it was decided in the 1990's that we would only stock Native strains in there repective drainages. and stop dropping yellowstone, and Bear Lake strains everywhere. Well some of those historic Cutthroat Lakes had not been stocked for Years. And we felt we owned it to anglers to create better fisheries, so Take Red Castle lake for instant. it had not been stocked since 1995. So we decided to use Tiger trout in 2008 in there place under reduced stocking numbers. These fish are sterile, so when we do shift back to Cutthroat (and we will as soon as brood stock is secured) we can phase the TG trout out, and be able to put cutthroat back in there native drainages.That is why you see more Tigers in historical Cutthroat waters.
> 
> 2. BK waters
> THe main reason you see TG in BK waters is 1) we put them there becasue we felt it was needed to help reduce Bk numbers and we are using them as a Biological tool. 2) Create more TG opportunity because they do so well in the Uintas, and other species in the past never created the fishery we felt that water could be. 3) they found there way in from other waters.
> 
> We are now using other tools in the Uintas such as Sterile BK from now on, and this year was the first year that all BK stocked in the Uintas were sterile. Even though they are not on the stocking database yet, they were stocked this year.
> 
> Wes


Thanks for the reply. That answered all of the questions I had. Keep up the good work! :O||:


----------



## Catherder

wyogoob said:


> This is what I want:
> 
> 1. No Tigers in Continent and Milk lakes.
> 2. More golden trout.
> 3. Take one of the "numbered" lakes up in the top of the Bear River drainage and name it "Lake David" for brookieguy1....uh...throw in a "Lake Catherder" too; has a nice ring to it.
> 4. Less money spent on fish in the Uintas and more on White-tailed Ptarmigan and drought-resistant wildflowers.


That sounds great. Lake Catherder I'm sure would be one of those "X-52" lakes devoid of fish. There might be a few boreal toads or salamanders in it at least. Lake David would no doubt have big brookies in it. However, no one is more deserving of having a Uintas lake named after them than *you*. Which lake name should we change? To my knowledge, there is no Bolete lake or ptarmigan lake on the map. How about changing Granddaddy lake to Goob lake? -Ov-


----------



## Grandpa D

I like the name Granddaddy Lake.
I say leave that one alone.


----------



## Ifish

What about Mirror? Then we could call it the Goob Lake Highway! Mr. and Mrs. Goob are cleaning it anyway... :O||:


----------



## HighmtnFish

cfbiologist said:


> We are now using other tools in the Uintas such as Sterile BK from now on, and this year was the first year that all BK stocked in the Uintas were sterile. Even though they are not on the stocking database yet, they were stocked this year.
> Wes


This management plan sounds like it will be awesome for the uintas. :O||: 
I hope the folks in the southern region will follow suit.


----------



## HighmtnFish

PBH said:


> HighmtnFish said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's as if the people in charge in the Cedar City office are trying to overpopulate certain lakes with brook trout on purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> It makes me wonder why on Earth would a manager, especially one who grew up fishing the Boulder Mountain and targeting large brook trout, ever intentionally try to overpopulate a lake with brook trout? It just doesn't make sense. In fact, it would make more sense that a manager would intentionally do whatever he could in order to grow more LARGE brook trout. That makes sense.
Click to expand...

I don't think the manager is trying to intentionally overpopulate lakes on the boulder. I just think he could do more in order to grow more large brook trout. Some ideas might be planting sterile Brookie in more lakes, and stop planting lakes that are obviously overpopulated.


----------



## brookieguy1

cfbiologist said:


> I can't Speak for The southern Region, however I will speak for our Region up North. Yes you are seeing more tigers in more places for good reason.
> 1. Cutthroat
> We do not have an adequate brood stock of proper strains of Cutthroat for the Uintas.
> ( Bear River or Colorado) After doing alot of genetic work, it was decided in the 1990's that we would only stock Native strains in there repective drainages. and stop dropping yellowstone, and Bear Lake strains everywhere. Well some of those historic Cutthroat Lakes had not been stocked for Years. And we felt we owned it to anglers to create better fisheries, so Take Red Castle lake for instant. it had not been stocked since 1995. So we decided to use Tiger trout in 2008 in there place under reduced stocking numbers. These fish are sterile, so when we do shift back to Cutthroat (and we will as soon as brood stock is secured) we can phase the TG trout out, and be able to put cutthroat back in there native drainages.That is why you see more Tigers in historical Cutthroat waters.
> 
> 2. BK waters
> THe main reason you see TG in BK waters is 1) we put them there becasue we felt it was needed to help reduce Bk numbers and we are using them as a Biological tool. 2) Create more TG opportunity because they do so well in the Uintas, and other species in the past never created the fishery we felt that water could be. 3) they found there way in from other waters.
> 
> We are now using other tools in the Uintas such as Sterile BK from now on, and this year was the first year that all BK stocked in the Uintas were sterile. Even though they are not on the stocking database yet, they were stocked this year.
> 
> Wes


-I love you man.


----------



## Brookie

PBH and W2U how has the sterile brook trout on the boulder been working? I haven't heard much on them. More on cuts, hybrids but nothing really in the brook trout management of the boulder. If you could pass this question on to the relatives in Cedar city I would appreciate it. Thanks


----------



## brookieguy1

Not sure but I think the only place they used them was B.D? They seemed to work great there but recently the upstream invaders tend to be pushing them out. Not putting blame, that's just the way it happened. Kind of disheartening to be fighting what you think might be a trophy brook trout only to find a hybrid on the end of your line.........right brookie?


----------



## wyoming2utah

The plan on the Boulder is to hopefully start using more sterile brook trout as well...I know that there is some hope to get a couple more lakes "treated" and the fish in them replaced with sterile brookies. But, truthfully, that is an uphill battle. There is also a lot of fear about putting sterile brookies into lakes with drainages that have been treated for native cutts. But, sterile brook trout are definitely in the plans...


----------



## PBH

HighmtnFish said:


> I don't think the manager is trying to intentionally overpopulate lakes on the boulder. I just think he could do more in order to grow more large brook trout. Some ideas might be planting sterile Brookie in more lakes, and stop planting lakes that are obviously overpopulated.


Maybe he should implement more liberal harvest regulations? Encourage anglers to keep more fish? Oh, wait, that's already been done and anglers still won't keep more fish...

Sterile brook trout are not a new idea. But, it isn't simply an thing you can just switch over and start doing either.

Factors involved in utilizing sterile brook are:
1. availability. Can the hatcheries produce enough triploid brook trout to start a stocking plan to support new lakes? I believe that in the last few years our hatcheries have gotten better at this, and we probably do have the support for this.

2. rennovate existing lakes. Before planting sterile brook trout you have to eliminate the fertile brook trout. This is the hard one, especially in areas around the town of Boulder where the use of rotenone has been controversial. Getting approval to poison some areas has been troublesome. So, angler support from people like you is needed!

3. which lakes to implement? Cutthroat drainages? traditional brook trout waters? Obviously, a lake like McGath is doing just fine, and has done for 30 years. But what about a place like Oak Creek that goes through cycles depending upon water levels? Or Donkey -- one of the most popular lakes on the mountain, but also a lake notorious for marginal sized brook trout?

Believe me -- if it were easy, then it would already be done. No easy button here.


----------



## grousehunter

Grandpa D said:


> I like um and I also like Wiper and Tiger Muskie.
> Thank you UDWR.


Enough said!


----------



## RnF

Thanks for all the replies. I certainly have a better understanding for whats going on. I may not like the Tiger Trout, but it seems to have it's place. 

I do question the practice of having a harvestable fish with the cutthroats. Not every lake or river needs to be a put and take fishery. I understand why it's being done, but I certainly don't agree with it.

The news about sterile Brook Trout should really help out the Uintas... if they can get a handle on the ones that are breeding, that there could be an impossible feat. I wish the DWR luck on these endevours.

Thank again.


----------



## PBH

RnF said:


> The news about sterile Brook Trout should really help out the Uintas... if they can get a handle on the ones that are breeding, that there could be an impossible feat.


Rotenone. That would take care of the fertile brook trout. Once poisoning has been undertaken, then come back with sterile (tripoloid) brook trout. It's not impossible. It's social. Convincing the public that the use of rotenone is a good thing can sometimes seem impossible....


----------



## RnF

I would support the poisoning 100%. Like you say though, convincing the public to go along is always hard. Not much to really lose imo, and so much to gain by doing that.


----------



## RnF

I'll be ****. This is great news. Looks like the DWR is getting this one right. It's refreshing to see. Let's hope it turns out for the better.

http://www.ksl.com/?sid=22134862&nid=14 ... featured-1


----------



## MJ73

grousehunter said:


> Grandpa D said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like um and I also like Wiper and Tiger Muskie.
> Thank you UDWR.
> 
> 
> 
> Enough said!
Click to expand...

Don't forget the Splake. I like them all.


----------

