# Emergency limit changes



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

It looks like the emergency limit changes that we all expected to see this summer are starting to go into effect. I would suspect we'll see more coming...









DWR ups fishing limit at 10 Utah bodies of water due to lower water levels


Utah wildlife officials announced Wednesday they are increasing the number of fish people can catch at 10 different bodies of water across the state, citing anticipated lower water levels due to the ongoing statewide drought.




www.ksl.com


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Man, that is disheartening. I'm worried it might not be the last of these notifications.

Someone was saying elsewhere that OC was getting drained. If true, was that just from the water situation or was it due to other plans/management, like work on the dam?


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Sucks but glad the state changes policy to allow fisherman to catch as many as possible before they die off.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

OC will turn into another Piute Res. after this summer. One will remember the fish that were once hooked and it will be called "The Good Old Days" I sure wish there was a way and funding to "rescue" some of the fish for breeders or transplant.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Sadly I think that's out of the question. Moving live fish between water bodies is expressly verboten. Obviously that's not an explicit rule for the agency but whirling disease was a big issue in southwestern Utah and can take a while for surveys to catch it. Given how vulnerable trout are to the disease I'm guessing the state has no interest in allowing such transfers. Letting folks harvest more before they die is probably our best outcome.

I'm bummed I never spent time at Otter. I think I'll be heading up to Minersville soon enough.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Whirling disease never crossed my thoughts, good call. I know Minersville has some real tanks in the pond. Have a great time, and get some pics.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Taxidermist -- the great thing with OC is that it has always been a great producer. It's just plain and simple a good reservoir for growing trout fast. Look at it historically -- It has NEVER had special regulations, and always allowed the standard Utah harvest -- and yet it just continues to produce quality rainbows year, after year. _All it need is water_. We don't need to attempt to save any of those fish for breeding -- their genetics are not the magic pill pushing through the bottleneck. It's the water.

Minersville is another really good example. Look at the water we had in 2018 and 2019. Two consecutive years of GOOD water. Those two good years provided a base for the fish we are still catching _today! _The secret to success at both reservoirs is water. If we have good water, we'll see good fish again.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Catherder said:


> Someone was saying elsewhere that OC was getting drained. If true, was that just from the water situation or was it due to other plans/management, like work on the dam?


I don't know the answer to this. But I can look at that the teacup diagram on the Sevier River system and make an educated guess that the reason OC will be drained is because there wasn't enough water coming in to sustain the water users needs this year. 

this is not a pretty picture:


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

On the plus side it would be a good time to wander through all the mud picking up old lures and sinkers that have been lost, even perhaps a few fishing poles that were left unattended while a big old trout took it for a swim.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Critter said:


> On the plus side it would be a good time to wander through all the mud picking up old lures and sinkers that have been lost, even perhaps a few fishing poles that were left unattended while a big old wiper took it for a swim.


Fixed it for you.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I have caught a couple of rainbows down there that could tow a boat around for a while. But I won't discount a wiper..

They have the right combination of feed and environment to grow big trout fast.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I need Strawberry to drop a bit, I have a downrigger ball or two I need to pickup...  Oh, and a anchor that came untied in Scofield.

-DallanC


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

I have a fish downrigger weight at the bottom just as you leave the narrows coming into renegade bay area. When it got snagged up, it was like tossing an anchor over the side and spinning the boat in a hard right turn. Bro-in-law wasn't paying attention to the sudden depth change and didn't get the weight up fast enough. That day I went out and got E Downriggers.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

The word I am hearing from local water managers is that Piute and Otter Creek will be drained by the beginning of July. Not because of dam work or any kind of repairs but because the water will be used up. The same could also be said about some of the other waters on that list.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

wyoming2utah said:


> The word I am hearing from local water managers is that Piute and Otter Creek will be drained by the beginning of July. Not because of dam work or any kind of repairs but because the water will be used up. The same could also be said about some of the other waters on that list.


 I imagine the Koosh will be a mudpuddle by then as well, if not before. Sad deal.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

It's depressing to consider the scale of this drought. Demoralizing may be a more accurate phrase actually.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

This is so frustrating. It’s not anyone’s fault, but just frustrating that we can’t get water. I held out as long as I could on sprinklers this year. My “spring lawn” was on the verge of total deadness. (Is that a word?) 

I’m not willing to turn my yard into a pasture of weeds, so I guess I can be mad at myself. But this is frustrating.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Same. I didn't start watering until this past weekend. We are going to put in a smaller section of turf in our backyard for our girl to eventually play on but this year may expedite us ripping out our front yard. I really don't love grass but it's tough to spend the money to transition to xeriscaping.

I just wish the state would help more municipalities incentivize turf removal and/or reduction of use in new development. Northern Utah has done better than S. Utah but we need to move the needle more.

I do applaud American Fork if the reporting is accurate. Bravo.









American Fork saves millions of gallons of water as state heads into 'worst' drought


One city in Utah County saved millions of gallons of water last month after Gov. Cox warned the state is heading into the worst drought and fire season it has seen.




www.ksl.com





Lawns don't compete with desert agriculture on water usage but we need to change behavior now to have impacts years down the road.


----------



## High Desert Elk (Aug 21, 2012)

As far as drought goes, it's a multistate thing. The Rio Grande is supposed to be dry later this summer as it runs through Albuquerque. Never happened in my lifetime before.

Good thing about a lawn's "deadness" is that grass can be dormant for a summer and then come back the following year. Mine went dead the year I built an addition onto my house and it came back in full the following year.

A dry lawn is a small price to pay to have have running water in your house on demand...


----------



## Formerridgerunner (Dec 16, 2015)

PBH said:


> I don't know the answer to this. But I can look at that the teacup diagram on the Sevier River system and make an educated guess that the reason OC will be drained is because there wasn't enough water coming in to sustain the water users needs this year.
> 
> this is not a pretty picture:
> View attachment 148278





Catherder said:


> Man, that is disheartening. I'm worried it might not be the last of these notifications.
> 
> Someone was saying elsewhere that OC was getting drained. If true, was that just from the water situation or was it due to other plans/management, like work on the dam?


They’re doing work at the dam at DMAD this year. I don’t know why it was this year or in the middle of the summer when Ag use of water is really high. I would have thought they’d schedule it for fall after farming is winding down. Took the kids kayaking there last week and it was 2 feet deep until you got to the main spillways and pump house. Usually at least 6-8 feet. I believe they tried to keep most of it upstream which is concerning because of how low Yuba, Piute, and Otter Creek are.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Formerridgerunner said:


> They’re doing work at the dam at DMAD this year. I don’t know why it was this year or in the middle of the summer when Ag use of water is really high.


The answer is simple: do it when there isn't any water. You don't want to do it on a high water year, or when the lake is actually trying to fill (ie: winter). Do it now because there isn't any water to attempt to drain anyway.


This is also the year they should poison Scofield.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

PBH said:


> This is also the year they should poison Scofield.


We can dream.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

While it would be nice if they could poison a few ponds I doubt that they have any money in their budgets for it.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Critter said:


> While it would be nice if they could poison a few ponds I doubt that they have any money in their budgets for it.



If that's the case, they need to plan better.
For how many years have we been talking about Scofield? I'd wager that there is some money, and possibly even a warehouse with some rotenone, just waiting for someone to say "go". But it won't happen.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

PBH said:


> If that's the case, they need to plan better.
> For how many years have we been talking about Scofield? I'd wager that there is some money, and possibly even a warehouse with some rotenone, just waiting for someone to say "go". But it won't happen.



While there may be other ponds that could benefit, Scofield has been an albatross around the DWR's neck for years. A few bucks and some rotenone and its over. Heck, they can even put the TM's and wipers back in if they want. Between the Blue Ribbon fund and other sources, they could economically make it happen. 

But PBH is right, it won't happen.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Motivation or cumbersome review process with public input?


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

backcountry said:


> Motivation or cumbersome review process with public input?


Yes


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

I immediately regretted not including "both?".


----------



## Brave arrow (Dec 24, 2017)

Just curious as to why the desire to poison scofield now?

My family has property up there so it has been my primary fishing spot my whole life. I do agree that it should of been poisoned several years ago the chubs were out of control. But over the last few years it has made significant progress from my observations and and some of the best fishing I have seen it have. Catching chubs has been getting more difficult over the last couple of years. And the frequency of nice sized trout has been increasing.

Not saying roetone is the wrong solution just wondering why the desire when the fishery seems to be heading in the right direction?


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

With water levels low, it will be cheaper, faster and more effective.

-DallanC


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Yep, treating it now just expedites the "positive progress" you are seeing. I don't know that they have to do it, it's just an option to move the progress along more quickly.


----------



## Brave arrow (Dec 24, 2017)

I understand the timing would be good with low water levels. 

But where I am confused is how would progress speed up? The way I understand it is the treatment would kill off the fish eliminating remaining chubs and everything else. However the place would have to be restocked with trout and whatever other species desired. Hence needing a few years to get to good sized fish again. It just does not seem worth setting everything else back to eliminate the remainder of a chub population in decline already.

I have never seen the effects first hand of a treatment so am I not understanding this correctly? Do the fish rebound quickly?


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

My understanding is a lot depends on quality of habitat. If it has a healthy invertebrate population trout can "rebound" pretty fast. Fast is very subjective though. I think Kolob managed to rebound pretty well after 2 years. 

Maybe PBH can be more precise. I know Panguitch rebounded well the last time and it's an amazing fishery. I'm not sure how long it took to get to the lunkers being caught now though.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Brave -- the progress you are seeing now is slow. The "bucket" is already full, and the population of existing fish will experience SLOW growth rates. So the progress how long it will take for the predatory fish reduce the chub population and thus enable trout (and predators) to grow to "nice" sizes is SLOW. Slow growth rates mean smaller average size fish.

on the other hand, if you poison the lake _this year, _and then follow up that treatment by stocking trout (catchables), musky, and wipers _this fall (_stock the lake immediately following the treatment), you would then be catching 16" trout next summer. Further, all of the fish stocked in the fall would be experiencing FAST growth rates, meaning you'd have larger fish FASTER by poisoning the lake this year, than you will if you leave the lake alone and continue with the current plan.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

I would refer to a recent fishing report here, with pictures, showing a lot of very skinny trout, as evidence that Scofield, in its current state, has a long ways to go before it is producing to its previous potential. This is consistent with what I have caught up there this past year. Which is contrasted with catching fat trout there in the fall of 2023 if the treatment was done this fall.


----------



## Brave arrow (Dec 24, 2017)

Slow is a good word to use because it was a good number of years battling chub and small cutthroat hence getting through those years to the point it is now creates my reluctance to support a treatment.

An overpopulation of fish with the natural food sources would be a factor in the slow growth I agree. If the fish can rebound as quickly as claimed I guess I am good either way even with no treatment which is likely the case I still am satisfied with its progress at this point.

Thanks guys for the clarity


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Brave, IDK how old you are or how far back your experience goes there... but scofield was da'bomb for a long time back in the day. HUGE fish and lots of them. I hope you got to see it in its glory.

Its been on a declining trajectory for quite a while. In my own experience, we saw it peaking around 2003/2004 ... from then on it started to rapidly decline. ATM, I kindof doubt the current strategy is going to work to be honest. I'd love to see it return to the lake of old. I quit fishing it when the slot limit went into effect. Better lakes out there to spend time on.

Poison it, start over... 3 years from now it could be amazing.

-DallanC


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

DallanC said:


> ATM, I kindof doubt the current strategy is going to work to be honest.


There is no doubt that the current strategy will produce a handful of truly big fish. We will see some big tiger musky. And we might see some big wipers too. But how long will that take? We know from past experience with Newcastle, Minersville, Otter Creek, etc. that wipers take a number of years to establish and start to make a dent with chubs when stocked on top of an existing population. We also know that tiger musky don't control those rough fish populations -- sure, they utilize them, but they do not control them. We also know that trout cannot out-compete chubs - and thus as long as chubs are in there, the trout will grow SLOW, and slow growth means small sizes. So, you are looking at somewhere around 6 years - IF the wipers can start to knock the chubs back - to get trout up to 20".

you could have 18" trout in 2023 if you poison it in 2021.
You could still have tiger musky that would grow big.
You could still have wipers to grow big, and more importantly keep chub population from returning.




DallanC said:


> Poison it, start over... 3 years from now it could be amazing.
> 
> -DallanC



To me, it's a no-brainer. 




My prediction: Rotenone in 2026.


----------



## Brave arrow (Dec 24, 2017)

Dallan only being in my mid 20s I cannot say I have many memories of the lake in its prime as a teenager my recollection is mainly that scofield was full of chub and Cutts under 12 inches. And the deer heard was in very poor shape. So looking at today the reservoir and the heards are leaps and bounds better from my personal experience. But according to many people they are in some of the worse conditions they seen.
Kind of funny how much changes optically from one generation to the next.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

PBH- what is the process for a treatment like that? Is it simply a Wildlife Board determination? Does it fall to the DWR? Is there a process laid out in rule or statute that has to be followed? 

I’m interested to know what it would take.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Critter said:


> While it would be nice if they could poison a few ponds I doubt that they have any money in their budgets for it.


They're going to do Navajo. Glad to see it to. Glad that they aren't "thinking outside the box" and using some alternative method that we already know isn't as effective.

What will be really interesting to watch is Navajo compared to Scofield. I'll wager that we're catching more "quality" fish from Navajo in two years than what we're catching from Scofield.


Vanilla -- I don't know the process. I'm guessing that for any of these waters where rotenone is an option, that an EA has been prepped (done?) already. I know that the DWR will usually attempt to work with local groups / agencies (ie: County Commissions, etc.) -- but they don't need permission, and often times the local groups / agencies may not agree, but the DWR may proceed anyway.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Vanilla -- much of the process is dictated by money. Where does the money for the project come from? If Federal dollars are being used, then the NEPA process would have to be completed. If State money, then the entire NEPA process may not need to be followed -- some agreements may already be in place by different Forests that grant the DWR a license to apply a piscicide. Another factor in the process is whether or not there is any controversy with the project. If controversy exists, then the NEPA process would again apply.


FWIW -- I hope Scofield pans out. I think it's great that we are seeing more angler use already, and I'm glad that there is some excitement with that fishery. Hopefully these water levels and fires don't cause a set-back. I'm looking forward to a productive fishery in the coming years. Let's pray for some water!


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

More changes.









Utah DWR increases fishing limits at community ponds, 5 other places as drought worsens


The Utah Division of Wildlife Resources on Thursday increased the fishing limits at all 57 of its community ponds and five other Utah waterbodies.




www.ksl.com


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

sounds like fishing is really good at Minersville right now. Reports of yellow powerbait being very effective.


----------

