# Scofield



## USMARINEhuntinfool (Sep 15, 2007)

Any of you guys still fishing Scofield? Are they getting a handle on the Chub population? We used to fish Scofield exclusively when I was a kid, lots of good memories up there that can't be replaced. Would like to see it get back to where it used to be. Last fished it 4-5 years ago, it was terrible. Noticed they haven't planted Rainbow the last 3 or so years. So what's the verdict, good days gone forever?


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Conveniently enough, Here is an article on KSL today http://www.ksl.com/?sid=39754742&nid=148&title=state-officials-survey-stock-at-scofield-reservoir

i am there regularly, but rarely waste my time fishing. Those who know how to get the tigers can do great as the last numerous state records have originated there. I spoke to this fisheries biologist quoted just a few nights ago. His point was that all of the chubs caught are 11+" meaning that the cuts and tigers are eating all fo the smaller ones, so it is just now a matter of waiting 15 years for these to simply die off as the off spring are not surviving. In short, dont waste your time. if you just want to get the kids out go there late June to catch a crap load of 10" cut planters, use worms if you want to do your part to remove chubs.


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool (Sep 15, 2007)

I was just scrolling through that article. It's to bad they weren't able to get ahead of the chub population before it was out of control. We used to always slay them up there it was a lot of fun as a kid to catch that many fish.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

I think I'll still make a couple trips up there next ice fishing season and pull a couple or a hundred chubs out. It's like perch at Fish Lake, cook the bigger ones and freeze the smallest ones for bait (perch or smoked chub in a chowder with bacon is pretty good, plus you can make jokes about "smoked chub.") Plus won't it help curb the population if we take as many out as possible?


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

USMARINEhuntinfool said:


> So what's the verdict, good days gone forever?


Yep. They're gonna keep putting Tigers in, and they won't have anything to eat except the young of the year chubs. It seems possible to keep enough predators in there to eat all of the young of the year chubs, so we're going to have adult chubs for another 20 or so years. But there won't be any other age classes of chubs, and the Tigers that need something bigger than 2 inches long to eat will struggle to get big enough to eat the adult chubs.



> "We're going to reduce the number of cutthroat we're stocking, and we're going to try and stock a much larger tiger trout," Hart said. "Hopefully we'll get better survival rates because they were an important predator in here at one time, but they've seemed to kind of become scarce."


There's a really simple solution. It works. They've proven it. They used it at Red Fleet last fall. It's called rotenone. Red Fleet was poisoned twice in a month's time and fish were returned about a month after the first treatment. If they had done that at Scofield at the same time, we would have no chubs, thousands of trout, and they would be able to plant fingerling trout. They could've planted hundreds of thousands of sub catchable trout this spring and we would've had decent fishing by December. But no.... they want to experiment with Tiger Trout. Because that's obviously drawing thousands of anglers to the second most popular flat water fishery in the state. NOT.



> Local fishermen at Thursday's gill netting said they don't fish at Scofield Reservoir often because of the lack of trout.





> "I love fishing," Huntington said. "I like to see what fish there are. I used to come up here quite a bit, but it's not been really good fishing for a while."


Maybe if they get enough people complaining about the situation they'll do something about it. Or they could keep doing what they're doing for another 20 years.

[email protected]

[email protected]

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool (Sep 15, 2007)

Thanks for the summation Fishrmn. That's kind of what I figured. Pretty dam sad if you ask me. That place used to be quite the destination fishing spot. We'd go there and catch Brown Trout, Rainbow Trout, and Cutthroat Trout all in a day, usually within a couple hours we'd have a limit. If they killed the lake and restocked it the Tiger's would still do alright would they not? As long as they kept stocking rainbows. I'm no fish biologist, but I would assume that Chub is not the tiger trouts sole intake source. I think Red Fleet is a great example, and they're awfully proud of it. Would make sense to continue those type of results to other sub-par fisheries, maybe I'm just losing it.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

I send an email to Mr. Hart about once a month reminding him that nobody is fishing Scofield. He knows it. He is the Southeastern Fisheries Chief. He monitors this site and a couple of others. The Scofield Facebook page is almost silent. He needs a few more emails from people who used to fish Scofield, but no longer bother with the place.

I'm pretty certain that the few remaining large Tigers are subsisting on planted Cutthroat and Tiger Trout. They wait by the boat ramp for their delivery of hatchery raised tidbits. They probably know the delivery schedule and recognize the sound of the hatchery trucks.

The DWR knows there is a problem, but they refuse to do what works to fix it. They think they can have a trophy Tiger Trout fishery and rid the reservoir of chubs. If the chubs are gone they'll have to feed the Tigers. If they don't want to feed the Tigers then they've gotta let the chubs reproduce AND GROW. Without something for 16-20 inch Tigers to eat they won't grow. And we've all seen how popular Scofield is when there's nothing but chubs and a few dozen large Tiger Trout to catch.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Sounds like a good place for some tiger muskies, they will get a handle on the chub population in no time.


----------



## Slayer (Feb 3, 2013)

Absolutely!! Northern Pike and Tiger Muskie!! Now were talking!!


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I wouldn't say northern pike since they will reproduce, but the tiger muskie on the other hand would be great and you can control their numbers.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Critter said:


> I wouldn't say northern pike since they will reproduce, but the tiger muskie on the other hand would be great and you can control their numbers.


Six of one, half a dozen of the other.
And the USFWS will NOT allow Northern Pike. 
They'd still have a poor fishery and have to raise fish to feed the apex predator.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

So Fishrmn, why do you think the DWR is so reluctant to rotenone Scofield?



A couple more comments. 

1. RE"Sounds like a good place for some tiger muskies" 
Maybe, but they may have to put in quite a few to get a handle on the chubs there. Then, they may decide they like to eat trout more. I like to fish for so called warmwater species as much as anyone, but Scofield used to be one of the top 2-3 trout lakes in the state. It would be nice to have it that way again, as opposed to a mediocre mixed fishery. If they treated it, then put in the proper regulations, it could be good indefinitely. 

2. RE"I wouldn't say northern pike since they will reproduce"
Absolutely correct, but if Northern Pike ended up in there somehow, then the DWR would have to treat it due to downstream endangered species or overpopulation concerns. Pike would make the barrels of rotenone appear in a hurry. ;-) (this is written tongue in cheek, please no overly angry replies as I never favor any form of bucket biology, ever)


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

One reason for their hesitance is the fact that Helper and Price use the water. There's a lot of paperwork involved.

Two; They've done it before, and before that, and before that. They forget that the last time they did it, they did a good job of it. (Because there were Walleye in there.) It was nearly 20 years before the return of the chubs. (Anybody else think that the chubs were all gone and that some genius brought them back to help the trout get bigger?) They're tired of the cycle. So you poison it and put Cutts and Tigers back in.

Three; Money. They spent all of their money on other bucket biology problems last year. Red Fleet has cost them millions. Between rotenone, transplanting perch and crappie, and developing a Walleye hatching protocol, developing sterile Walleyes, etc.

Four; They had great success with the first batch or two of Tiger Trout. (Because there were all sizes and age classes of forage.) Now that the Cutts and Tigers are eating all of the young of the year chubs the predators are having a tough time getting big enough to eat the adult chubs. (They do a good job of eating 8 or 10 inch Cutthroats though.) So they think they can eat their cake and have it too. Once it's eaten (the chubs under control.) you can't have it anymore.

Get rid of the chubs. (rotenone) Plant 100s of thousands of fingerling trout. Put a few thousand Tiger Trout in and accept the loss of a few juvenile trout. You'll have some large Tigers and a fishery that will attract fishermen.

Pineview has a completely different situation, which is very well suited for Tiger Muskies. The _undesirable fish_ there are stunted game fish. Perch and Crappie. With two forage species the Muskies can't eliminate all of them, and the fishermen want to catch them. Not very many people go out to catch a limit of chubs.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Fishrmn said:


> Get rid of the chubs. (rotenone) Plant 100s of thousands of fingerling trout. Put a few thousand Tiger Trout in and accept the loss of a few juvenile trout. You'll have some large Tigers and a fishery that will attract fishermen.


I agree. Treat the lake then re institute the slot limit when the lake is restocked. The slot protected tigers and cutts will provide protection against the knucklehead bucket biologists with their chub minnows and against the off chance that a few chubs survive. The models at Strawberry and Panguitch Lake show it will work.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

I sure hope some of the guys who read this and agree will email the UDWR and Mr. Hart.
:!::!::!::!::!::!::!:

I don't have 20 years to wait to see if the current plan will work.
:shock::shock:

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## CaneHunter (Oct 10, 2013)

http://wildlife.utah.gov/hotspots/detailed.php?id=10

According to the DWR, 12,000 8-inch cutthroats were stocked on May 3. Whether they're just being eaten by the larger tigers or not is up for debate...but it is being stocked with trout other than tigers.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	14101	7.85	04/20/2015
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	35208	2.68	04/22/2015
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	17045	7.76	05/20/2015
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	17045	7.76	05/20/2015
> ...


That's what was planted last year. Are we seeing that many fish returned to the creel?..... No. They're feeding a few Tiger Trout that very few people bother to spend time at the reservoir hoping to catch one.



> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	13211	8.69	05/12/2014
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	13080	8.69	05/13/2014
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	13080	8.69	05/13/2014
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	34083	7.66	05/13/2014
> ...


And the year before......



> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	37654	7.86	05/06/2013
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	2848	7.86	05/07/2013
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	41339	7.86	05/07/2013
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	63210	5.95	10/22/2013
> ...


And exactly what we'll get until they poison it.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## toasty (May 15, 2008)

I caught a chub in there in 1998. I kept it and called the DWR on the way home and they told me there are no chubs in Scofield. I asked if I could bring it to the Springville office and they told me no, just throw it away. It was then and there that I learned they don't take "normal" people's reports seriously. It kills me to think what could have happened if they had implemented a chub plan at that time, it would still be one of the best fisheries in the state. I used to spend 10-20 days a year for about 2 decades on that lake and haven't fished it for about 5 years. It is sad what has happened that I feel like could have been avoided.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

toasty said:


> I caught a chub in there in 1998. I kept it and called the DWR on the way home and they told me there are no chubs in Scofield. I asked if I could bring it to the Springville office and they told me no, just throw it away. It was then and there that I learned they don't take "normal" people's reports seriously. It kills me to think what could have happened if they had implemented a chub plan at that time, it would still be one of the best fisheries in the state. I used to spend 10-20 days a year for about 2 decades on that lake and haven't fished it for about 5 years. It is sad what has happened that I feel like could have been avoided.


Please send an email to both of the email links that I posted. It may not help, but it can't hurt to flood their inboxes with complaints.

[email protected]

[email protected]

Thanks.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## toasty (May 15, 2008)

I've talked to Justin a few times. He is a good guy and listens to what people say. After several calls and a couple pics from family members, he agreed to restock a reservoir he thought winter killed every year. The only problem is the fish never showed up (at least that we could tell). I don't know if it was just lip service or someone screwed up, but I have zero confidence a call or email from me is going to make the least bit of difference at scofield.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

As in the old adage.... Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

I'm at least certain that he knows my name and my opinion of their messed up situation at Scofield.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## brendo (Sep 10, 2013)

Yep it's gone way downhill. My grandparents have a cabin up there and I haven't even bothered fishing the lake for the last 3-4 years. We now head up to fairview or fish the rivers close by when they are open. it seemed to get really bad after the lowered the lake for dam repair.


----------



## mikevanwilder (Nov 11, 2008)

I like the Tiger muskie idea. I have watched Joes Valley Res flourish since the put them in there. I rarely see a chub in there now, when that is all you could catch 6 years ago. The splake are still doing fine also. I guess the problem would be what happens after the chubs are all gone. I'm by no means a expert though just a thought.


----------



## ColdWaterCoord (Jun 19, 2012)

All,

I thought I would take a minute to reply to this thread.

In 2005 when we first netted chubs at Scofield I was the manager in Price. At that time I made the recommendation to treat the reservoir because it was apparent which direction the fishery was going to go. However, I was overruled by the Salt Lake office staff for the same reason that it is unlikely that we will do it now --- money. My estimate at the time is that it would cost in excess of $500,000 to treat Scofield. With the increased cost of the chemical since then, we are looking at between $800,000 and $900,000 and we do not have the cash.

Red Fleet, a much smaller body of water cost $130,000 in chemical. We have also invested some money in the sterile walleye program there as was previously stated but nowhere near the millions previously alluded to. The walleye program will also benefit a number of waters around the state so all of the cost cannot be attributed to Red Fleet.

The current management plan has decreased the number of chubs in Scofield and altered their population structure. Hopefully the changes proposed by Justin will take it to the next level. One thing I will note is that the large chubs currently in the reservoir are already reaching the end of their life span, so it will not be another 20 years before they pass from the system.

The situation in Scofield is far from perfect. No one is disputing that. However, given the cost of a treatment and the limited other options available, there are not a lot of choices moving forward. It should be remembered, that this situation most likely arose from someone using live bait illegally. The failure of the DWR to address the issue in some people''s mind is not the primary issue. The illegal movement of fish into Scofield, Red Fleet, Gunlock, Big Sandwash, and others is.

Finally with regard to tiger muskie. Whether or not the introduction of an apex predator such as muskie would accomplish the desired goal is debatable. They have not notably reduced the number of chubs in Joe's Valley to date. Regardless, they would never be allowed in Scofield because of their likely escapement from the reservoir and very real downstream native fish concerns. Justin and his crew are required to sample below Joe's Valley each year to determine if tiger muskie are moving out of that reservoir. If evidence of escapement is found, then that stocking program will need to be terminated and the regulations liberalized to remove them as quickly as possible.

No one more than me wants to see Scofield returned to the premier fishery it once was. The combination of chubs, the limited options for fishery management because of its location in the Green River drainage and cost of treatment, and the fact that the reservoir has not been filled to more than 20% of its capacity for the last three years makes it one of the more challenging problems that we are currently facing. However, we will continue to work on it.

I hope this helps put it all into perspective.

Paul Birdsey
Coldwater Sportfish Coordinator
Utah Wildlife Resources


----------



## toasty (May 15, 2008)

ColdWaterCoord said:


> All,
> 
> It should be remembered, that this situation most likely arose from someone using live bait illegally. The failure of the DWR to address the issue in some people''s mind is not the primary issue. The illegal movement of fish into Scofield, Red Fleet, Gunlock, Big Sandwash, and others is.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the info Paul and jumping into this discussion. I am glad to hear that treatment was recommended and at least considered by the DWR. I think we all agree that the issue arose because of an idiot bucket biologist, but that does not excuse or exempt the DWR for their response to the situation. Why on earth would your department decline a sample of a chub from an angler in 1998 on such a critical body of water?

I know $500k is a ton of money, but how much do you spend on Strawberry? You know that in its glory days, there was more angler pressure at Scofield than strawberry per acre of water. I think we are upset that the guys in Salt Lake didn't consider "our" body of water worthy of such an investment. I appreciate what you do and you have a thankless job, but you guys botched your response to this one and the result is one of top fisheries in Utah has been/will be messed up for over a decade. On a brighter note, I love what you've done on the majority of all the other reservoirs on the energy loop and in the area.


----------



## ColdWaterCoord (Jun 19, 2012)

I cannot answer the question as to why the sample was declined in 1998. Personally, I was infusing my veins with salt water as a biologist on the Great Salt Lake at that time. It is confusing.

As far as to us not treating Scofield previously, I can only reiterate that I would have liked to do it but it was not in the cards. We need to find a way forward irrespective of that decision.

And you are welcome for the other fisheries on the Energy Loop. It was exciting to work in Price and try and make fishing as good as it could be for the anglers of the state.

Paul Birdsey
Coldwater Sportfish Coordinator
Utah Wildlife Resources


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Thanks for your input Paul.

The chubs that were spawned and hatched in 2005 are NOT nearing the end of their life expectancy. That is the first year that the DWR netted chubs. When was the first year that the DWR actually did something about them? And at what point did the netting indicate that the predators were consuming all, or nearly all of the young of the year chubs. Because you'll have to go 25 to 30 years beyond that date to be rid of all of the chubs.

Scofield was at roughly 13% of capacity in November. I would like to see the comparison of volume with Red Fleet at that time. And don't tell me that rotenone won't work in colder water. Poison it a few days before the ice caps the reservoir. The fish that die would be under the ice, rotting for months. The ENTIRE reservoir would become anaerobic and would stay that way until the ice cap melts. I believe you'd have a complete kill of every chordate organism in the body of water. It may be even more extensive than that. You may have to jump start the insect life.

Or we could wait until the chubs that survived the gauntlet, and are now roughly 6 or 7 years old, grow to be 25 or 30 years old and die off.

Seriously, how are you going to get Tiger Trout to grow from the 15 inch range, where they'll eat young of the year chubs, to the 24 inch range where they'll maybe eat 11 inch chubs? And what about the 15-18 inch chubs?

The solution is really simple. You said it yourself. Rotenone.

In the mean time the State Park is getting how much use? Many other bodies of water get boating, skiing, sailing, and swimming use. Not much of that at Scofield. Is the loss of that revenue worth waiting even 10 years to recoup? I've talked with several people who drive past Scofield frequently, and they tell me that there are very few people fishing there. A relative told me that last summer, on the 24th of July weekend, that there were only 5 or 6 boat trailers at the Madsen Bay Ramp. I wonder how many will use it this year. There was some interest in large Tiger Trout, but there are no recent reports of any of those. I wonder how many people will use the reservoir this year?

Catherder said it very well


Catherder said:


> I agree. Treat the lake then re institute the slot limit when the lake is restocked. The slot protected tigers and cutts will provide protection against the knucklehead bucket biologists with their chub minnows and against the off chance that a few chubs survive. The models at Strawberry and Panguitch Lake show it will work.


⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## Packout (Nov 20, 2007)

Fishrmn stated my thoughts. If Scofield is at 20% capacity then isn't now the best time to treat it? Would it really cost $900,000 at the present level or is the $900,000 an estimate at full pool? Wrangle some money from the Habitat Council and some PR funds and get the Conservation Orgs to chip in a little. Take the money you'd have spent planting Scofield and put that toward the treatment. If it really is $900,000 then ask the Leg. for a one time funding and get the local reps to back it. 

I have not fished Scofield in 4 years and don't see going back anywhere in the near future. 

..


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Thanks for the reply!



ColdWaterCoord said:


> With the increased cost of the chemical since then, we are looking at between $800,000 and $900,000 and we do not have the cash.


Can we take up a collection?

One question, what is the cost difference between treating Scofield when it is at 14-20% of full versus treating it at full pool? Also, would the proposed Gooseberry dam project affect the water level of Scofield in such a way to keep it low as they fill the upstream reservoir? (assuming the project is approved)


----------



## CaneHunter (Oct 10, 2013)

The state website for the Scofield fishing report recommended using chubs as bait to catch larger tiger trout as recently as two weeks ago. I wished I would have screenshot it now because the fishing report has since changed.

I say this because my family and friends all noticed it about the same time and we were shocked to see the DWR not only not turning their heads to the use of chubs, but actually recommending it! Now, I know there is a distinct difference between live and dead bait, but nonetheless the state was recommending the use of chubs. Going to be tough to keep chubs out of that lake when that is the recommended bait...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Packout said:


> Fishrmn stated my thoughts. If Scofield is at 20% capacity then isn't now the best time to treat it?
> ..


Based off everything I know about rotenone treatments, the DWR always tries to do treatments in the fall when reservoirs are drawn down because it is the best time to treat it. Also, FWIW, I don't think Birdsey's comment about the reservoir level was meant to be a reason that it was difficult to treat but a reason that the management has been difficult in recent years.

Also, the cost of treating Schofield would certainly be much higher than Red Fleet just because of the size difference between the two. With that being said, didn't the DWR do a survey a few years ago about treating the reservoir? And, didn't anglers come back and say they didn't want it treated because of the trophy tiger trout? I swear I remember arguing about this topic a few years ago and some were adamantly against the treatment of the reservoir....


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

isn't there enough places to catch 10 inch rainbows utah? I actually like the dwrs plan and wouldn't mind catching a big tiger trout. The plan in place is a winner in my book.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> isn't there enough places to catch 10 inch rainbows utah? I actually like the dwrs plan and wouldn't mind catching a big tiger trout. The plan in place is a winner in my book.


Well, other than the trout you catch there now aren't Rainbows, they're Cutthroats. They are mostly 10 or 11 inches long though. And nobody seems interested in fishing there. If you want solitude, go to Scofield. You'll have the whole reservoir to yourself most of the time.
Those of us who've seen what Scofield is capable of aren't asking for 10 inch fish. It is very capable of duplicating Otter Creek or Panguitch where the average trout is closer to 18 inches, with many in the 22 to 24 inch range. The plan in place produced a few giant Tiger Trout for a couple of years. But they can't grow from the 15 or 16 inch class to the 28 inch class without forage. And the plan has eliminated most, if not all of that type of food. It has not, however, removed most of the chubs.

If you wanted to catch a big Tiger Trout, you should've been there fishing with a whole (dead) chub three years ago. You would've had to spend a lot of time twiddling your thumbs, but you had a chance. Not so much anymore. And don't plan on catching anything other than 11 inch Cutthroats now. The most accurate description of them that I've seen described them as "shoelaces".

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> Based off everything I know about rotenone treatments, the DWR always tries to do treatments in the fall when reservoirs are drawn down because it is the best time to treat it. Also, FWIW, I don't think Birdsey's comment about the reservoir level was meant to be a reason that it was difficult to treat but a reason that the management has been difficult in recent years.
> 
> Also, the cost of treating Schofield would certainly be much higher than Red Fleet just because of the size difference between the two. With that being said, didn't the DWR do a survey a few years ago about treating the reservoir? And, didn't anglers come back and say they didn't want it treated because of the trophy tiger trout? I swear I remember arguing about this topic a few years ago and some were adamantly against the treatment of the reservoir....


In my correspondence with the UDWR about Scofield, they've indicated that they don't like to treat reservoirs in late fall. An excuse? I don't know. But the current plan is leaving the second most popular flat water fishery in the state as a ghost town. Nobody's fishing there, and there's no reason to. The forage to grow large Tiger Trout isn't young of the year chubs. The DWR knows that. They've decided to plant bigger Tiger Trout in hopes of getting them past the bottleneck. Good luck planting 18 inch Tigers.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## sawsman (Sep 13, 2007)

Great discussion. It's too bad that reservoir is in the shape it's in. I miss fishing there, like many others.

I like catching large tiger trout, but there are a lot of other places to catch them. Almost too many now in my opinion.

I for one, will be driving to other locations and remember the good 'ole days there. Hasn't been much mentioned about the river below&#8230; _*used*_ to be my favorite! :sad:


----------



## caddis376 (May 19, 2016)

I have really enjoyed reading and learning more about the situation at Scofield. I had no idea what was going on. We used to catch some pretty spectacular rainbows at Scofield. Then we noticed that catching fish in general kept getting more difficult. We actually stopped fishing Scofield 3 years ago when we went and only caught a couple of tiger trout. We have no plans to go back. It is very sad.

For those of us in our prime fishing years we will need to continue to venture to Strawberry or Starvation. Hopefully Scofield will come back before we head to big pond upstairs.

Tight Lines


----------



## horkingmidget (Jan 8, 2015)

Fishrmn said:


> The plan in place produced a few giant Tiger Trout for a couple of years. But they can't grow from the 15 or 16 inch class to the 28 inch class without forage. And the plan has eliminated most, if not all of that type of food.


And where in your plan does this forage come from?

It seems that the only difference between your plan and the one in place is poisoning the entire fish population, including the forage species. So how is your recommendation better than the one in place?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

horkingmidget said:


> And where in your plan does this forage come from?
> 
> It seems that the only difference between your plan and the one in place is poisoning the entire fish population, including the forage species. So how is your recommendation better than the one in place?


His plan isn't better it's been tried multiple times and failed every time. It's also expensive. The state reccord for tiger trout was beat several times last year. I think it's up to 18 lbs now. My guess is it will get beat again this year. 6 to 10 lb plus fish can eat an awful big chub. When the chubs are gone or limited he can get his planter bows and Cutts back and I can still have a chance to catch a truly big fish.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## horkingmidget (Jan 8, 2015)

swbuckmaster said:


> His plan isn't better it's been tried multiple times and failed every time. It's also expensive.


That's my point.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Failed every time? Hmmm....I would argue that "his" plan is similar to what has worked at both Strawberry and Panguitch. Two plans that seem to be working very well!


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> His plan isn't better it's been tried multiple times and failed every time. It's also expensive. The state reccord for tiger trout was beat several times last year. I think it's up to 18 lbs now. My guess is it will get beat again this year. 6 to 10 lb plus fish can eat an awful big chub. When the chubs are gone or limited he can get his planter bows and Cutts back and I can still have a chance to catch a truly big fish.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


No, the record was broken roughly three times in a year, three years ago. There hasn't been much happening since then. The record is now over 19 pounds. And if you'd read my earlier post you'd see that those were the first year's planting of Tiger Trout. They had the full gamut of chubs to eat. Young of the year, yearling, sub adult, and adult. They probably ate more than their fair share of Rainbow Trout too. Eliminating the young of the year and the yearling chubs has resulted in what we have now. Few if any predators growing over 16 inches long. Now you can consider the sub adult class being hard to come by. You've got 25 years until the chubs hatched three years ago die of old age. 25 years of what you see is what you've got. The UDWR recognizes the problem. Their own press release says so.



> "We're going to reduce the number of cutthroat we're stocking, and we're going to try and stock a much larger tiger trout," Hart said. "Hopefully we'll get better survival rates because they were an important predator in here at one time, but they've seemed to kind of become scarce."


Again, good luck raising Tiger Trout to stock that are big enough to eat 11 inch chubs.

The plan of poisoning with rotenone worked for roughly 20 years until some bucket biologist decided to bring chubs back. And now we've got a wonderful fishery that produces 11 inch chubs, 11 inch Cutthroats and not much else. Yeah, there's a couple of 6 or 8 pound Tigers, but nobody is bothering to fish for them. And nobody seems to be catching them either.



> TROUT, Tiger	2013	19 lb 2 oz	37 1/2"	19 5/8"	Jake Trane	Scofield Reservoir





horkingmidget said:


> And where in your plan does this forage come from?
> 
> It seems that the only difference between your plan and the one in place is poisoning the entire fish population, including the forage species. So how is your recommendation better than the one in place?


Nope. Their plan is the plan that doesn't have any forage for the Tiger Trout. They've used Cutthroats and Tiger Trout to eliminate the young of the year chubs. Which is all fine and good. But since they've eliminated the entire year class of chubs for the last couple of years there're no chubs that are 3 to 8 inches long. And that's where their plan falls flat. There's NOTHING in there that the 14 to 16 inch Tigers can eat. If there's nothing in there that will help get them to the 24+ inch size, they won't be able to grow big enough to eat the 11+ inch chubs. Unless they're gonna feed the Tigers with Cutthroats. I would recommend a plan that eliminates the chubs and accepts a certain amount of loss of sub catchable trout to keep some Tigers reaching larger size. Their plan uses Cutthroats as forage, and leaves the chubs in a position to make a raging comeback if they ever quit planting the Cutthroat and Tigers in sufficient numbers.

If you don't eliminate the chubs by using rotenone, you've gotta stay the course for roughly 25 more years. When chubs took over Starvation, they were waiting 25 years to see the collapse of the chub population. And that was with the chubs facing predation by Walleye. Walleye that they didn't plant, and didn't have to supplement with annual plantings. Walleye are usually thought to be a rather efficient predator. Then, just as the UDWR was making plans for Starvation without chubs, some bozo put Yellow Perch in there. And without a stable water level the perch struggle in Starvation.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

caddis376 said:


> I have really enjoyed reading and learning more about the situation at Scofield. I had no idea what was going on. We used to catch some pretty spectacular rainbows at Scofield. Then we noticed that catching fish in general kept getting more difficult. We actually stopped fishing Scofield 3 years ago when we went and only caught a couple of tiger trout. We have no plans to go back. It is very sad.
> 
> For those of us in our prime fishing years we will need to continue to venture to Strawberry or Starvation. Hopefully Scofield will come back before we head to big pond upstairs.
> 
> Tight Lines


You, and everyone else who actually fished Scofield noticed the decline and stopped fishing there. There are a lot of folks who say that they'd love to catch a big Tiger Trout who don't bother to drive halfway across the state to do so. Meanwhile, people who live within 50 to 70 miles of Scofield go anywhere else they can to actually catch a few fish.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I still like the idea of tiger muskie. Even if they do get out of the pond they still can't reproduce, they may raise hell for a while until they get caught or die but they will take care of the problem fish in it. 

The DOW could even place some type of barrier just below the dam to hold them if they did get out, all it would take is a inspection of the area once every couple of weeks to see if they are getting out.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Critter said:


> I still like the idea of tiger muskie. Even if they do get out of the pond they still can't reproduce, they may raise hell for a while until they get caught or die but they will take care of the problem fish in it.
> 
> The DOW could even place some type of barrier just below the dam to hold them if they did get out, all it would take is a inspection of the area once every couple of weeks to see if they are getting out.





ColdWaterCoord said:


> Finally with regard to tiger muskie. Whether or not the introduction of an apex predator such as muskie would accomplish the desired goal is debatable. They have not notably reduced the number of chubs in Joe's Valley to date. Regardless, they would never be allowed in Scofield because of their likely escapement from the reservoir and very real downstream native fish concerns. Justin and his crew are required to sample below Joe's Valley each year to determine if tiger muskie are moving out of that reservoir. If evidence of escapement is found, then that stocking program will need to be terminated and the regulations liberalized to remove them as quickly as possible.
> 
> No one more than me wants to see Scofield returned to the premier fishery it once was. The combination of chubs, the limited options for fishery management because of its location in the Green River drainage and cost of treatment, and the fact that the reservoir has not been filled to more than 20% of its capacity for the last three years makes it one of the more challenging problems that we are currently facing. However, we will continue to work on it.
> 
> ...


Probably not going to happen.

Not that there's a huge chance that they'll poison it either. But they've gotta do something. The current plan is leaving nobody satisfied. And that's a problem.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Perhaps when the Loy's get tired of netting carp in Utah Lake they could head to Scofield and net chubs. 

They are laughing all the way to the bank now with each load of carp that they haul in.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Fishrmn said:


> There's NOTHING in there that the 14 to 16 inch Tigers can eat. If there's nothing in there that will help get them to the 24+ inch size, they won't be able to grow big enough to eat the 11+ inch chubs. Unless they're gonna feed the Tigers with Cutthroats. I would recommend a plan that eliminates the chubs and accepts a certain amount of loss of sub catchable trout to keep some Tigers reaching larger size. Their plan uses Cutthroats as forage, and leaves the chubs in a position to make a raging comeback if they ever quit planting the Cutthroat and Tigers in sufficient numbers.


If I may jump in here. At Strawberry reservoir a few years ago, the DWR did a study on the diet and other life aspects of the cutthroats there. When they calculated the amount of food consumed by the lakes *slot cutts* they found that the cutts consumed several metric *TONS* of zooplankton yearly. A 25 inch cutt I harvested at the Berry last fall was full of zooplankton and had the bright red meat consistent with its consumption. 
This is the food that allows smaller fish to bridge the gap to being large. Unfortunately, Scofield doesn't have very much of this food because the chubs eat it all. This is why the 11 inch cutts and 13 inch tigers now cannot jump to lunker size and maintain the trophy fishery and look like warmed over death when you catch one. It also is why rainbows totally tank in any chub dominated lake. Maybe the 18 inch tiger planters will work, but will an 18 inch finless freddie tiger used to eating pellets all its life be able to effectively chase down big chubs when stocked? I don't know.

Look, as recently as 3 years ago, I was cautiously optimistic about the existing plan working. You can even find me somewhere on Youtube catching and releasing a smoker Scofield cutt through the ice that year. A friend of a friend filmed it without my knowledge. (I didn't mind him doing it) However, the evidence seems overwhelming that the trophy fishing has declined markedly since then with few new trophies being recruited and the old ones dying off and all that is left to catch there are chubs and emaciated cutts. Not good.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Catherder, you nailed it. The problem at Schofield isn't that a prey base for tiger trout doesn't exist for them to grow large. The problem is that the tiger trout are not able to grow to a size where they become piscivorous and they remain small because the chubs have consumed the plankton. So, a very large bottleneck exists that prohibits the small fish from growing enough to become predators of chubs other than the young of the year. This same problem plays out on almost all waters where chubs thrive. 

Interestingly, I can now think of two specific waters where this problem has been eliminated by something other than rotenone--Newcastle and Minersville. In both reservoirs, resident rainbow trout were struggling to thrive because of unwanted non game fish (in Newcastle that fish was shiners). But, since the stocking of wipers, the nongame fish have virtually disappeared in Newcastle and the chubs are almost gone in Minersville and the plankton and food sources of rainbow trout has increased dramatically. Newcastle has better rainbow trout fishing now than it has at any other time I can remember in my life. Minersville has had continued good rainbow trout fishing for a number of years (with water levels the only thing stopping it from being phenomenal). And, to boot, good numbers of very large wipers are to be caught as well with Newcastle now putting out state records and I am sure that Minersville will not be far behind.

So, my question is whether or not wipers would/could be a feasible and possible solution. Obviously, Scofield's elevation and water temps may keep this idea from being a solution. But, it would be at least worth considering...


----------



## horkingmidget (Jan 8, 2015)

Thank you Catherder and wyoming2utah for clarifying my understanding. 

I don't feel another expensive Rotenone poisoning is the solution, hopefully there is an alternative.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

I'm not excited to see millions spent to fix a problem that was created by an idiot with a bucket, but something needs to be done at Scofield. There has been 1,355 views to this thread as of right now. That's about 10 times the number of views for threads on this part of the forum. And in ALL of those views and posts not one person has answered the original question in the positive. 


USMARINEhuntinfool said:


> Any of you guys still fishing Scofield?


_NOBODY_ said; "Yes". 
_NOBODY_ said; "Don't poison it. I'm catching lots of nice fish."
_NOBODY_ said; "Stay the course, I'm catching a few huge fish."

_EVERYBODY_ that has commented on their fishing experience has said that they don't bother with Scofield anymore. And that doesn't count the guys that have looked and didn't post.

I'd love to see Scofield become a fishery that people actually wanted to use. If there was another option besides rotenone that would produce a fishery that people were happy with I'd be all for it. The current plan ain't cuttin' it. Tiger Musky are out. They would escape the reservoir, and nobody's going to spend millions to modify the dam to prevent that from happening. Northern Pike, and Walleye are out for the same reasons. There's not enough depth to expect Splake to do well there. Wipers seem like a great idea.

Let's look at Wipers. There's a really easy way to tell if Wipers will work. At EVERY body of water that Wipers do well, there are people who waterski (without wetsuits), jet ski, windsurf, sail, sunbathe, or just hang out in the sun for several months out of the year. Has anyone seen much of that at Scofield? I didn't think so. Yeah, there're a few guys who have to prove their machismo by waterskiing at Scofield every once in a while. There are not a whole bunch of them doing it every day though. How many of the waters that hold decent Wipers have much of an ice fishing season? Newcastle? Not much. Minersville? For about a month and a half. Willard Bay? Yeah, it's shallow enough to freeze, but not every year. And not for very long. Scofield is locked under ice from Thanksgiving usually until the end of April.

Scofield is at too high of an elevation, and therefore too short of a growing season for Smallmouth Bass. And for the same reason Wipers would struggle. Did they bother to try Wipers at Panguitch? Nope. Rotenone and slot limits.

Rotenone works. It worked for nearly 20 years until someone brought Utah Chubs back. It looks like they were there in 1998. If the UDWR had listened to toasty, and instituted the kind of protocol that is in place at Strawberry and Panguitch, we might not be in the situation we find ourselves in. The UDWR netted chubs in 2005. And the recommendation at that time? ROTENONE and slot limits.

Or we can twiddle our thumbs for 25 more years.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## CaneHunter (Oct 10, 2013)

DWR article in 2011



> The USU study may reveal that Utah chubs cannot be controlled by biological means. To prepare for that possibility, the DWR will begin planning for a potential chemical treatment of Scofield. This treatment may never take place, but the planning requirements and necessary environmental clearances take a long time to complete. We do not want to wait until 2013 to begin the planning phase. A treatment plan will be finalized by 2013 and then, if the USU study shows that it is necessary, we will assemble the funding and equipment and plan on treating the reservoir in 2014 or 2015.


The DWR now says the treatment plan was shot down by survey right?

In 2011 they specifically stated they will work on starting the plan so implementation could be a smooth transition. Or did they scrap this altogether and decide to dig in their heels with the current predator plan?

And, I guess I'll answer the OP's question. Yes, I still fish there. It's very slow.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> There's not enough depth to expect Splake to do well there. Wipers seem like a great idea.
> 
> Let's look at Wipers. There's a really easy way to tell if Wipers will work. At EVERY body of water that Wipers do well, there are people who waterski (without wetsuits), jet ski, windsurf, sail, sunbathe, or just hang out in the sun for several months out of the year. Has anyone seen much of that at Scofield? I didn't think so. Yeah, there're a few guys who have to prove their machismo by waterskiing at Scofield every once in a while. There are not a whole bunch of them doing it every day though. How many of the waters that hold decent Wipers have much of an ice fishing season? Newcastle? Not much. Minersville? For about a month and a half. Willard Bay? Yeah, it's shallow enough to freeze, but not every year. And not for very long. Scofield is locked under ice from Thanksgiving usually until the end of April.
> 
> Scofield is at too high of an elevation, and therefore too short of a growing season for Smallmouth Bass. And for the same reason Wipers would struggle. Did they bother to try Wipers at Panguitch? Nope. Rotenone and slot limits.


1) Splake don't need depth--one of my favorite splake waters is very shallow (less than 10 feet in recent years) and is pumping out lots of really big splake-- 10+ pounds! But, the problem with using them is not much different than using tigers or cutts--the food source to grow them big enough to utilize the prey probably isn't there.
2) Wipers--to my knowledge, wipers haven't been tried in an elevation near Schofield's. But, they are working at Otter Creek (gillnetting numbers this spring have finally started showing that fry stocking is working) and waterskiing and water sports aren't too prevalent there. The growing season may be too short, but unlike smallmouth, the use of wipers would not be dependent on natural reproduction but stocking. With smallmouth bass, the growing season is too short in allowing young of the year smallies to make it through the winter. However, with wipers, if fingerling were stocked, they would most certainly survive the winter and probably much chubs like crazy. I still think it is worthy of consideration.
3) Wipers weren't tried at Panguitch and the current plan is working, BUT money was available to poison Panguitch and without looking up the exact size, I would be willing to bet that it is much smaller in size and, therefore, less money to treat.
4) I am certainly not against treating the reservoir; in fact, I think it is the best approach. But, if the money isn't there, it isn't there. So, until the money is available, why not try something else?


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

You guys are talking in circles. First you complain of to many chubs. Then say the tiger trout have eaten all the baby chubs and are starving. Then say hey let's plant wipers to eat the baby chubs. 

This is why the current plan is working. It's eliminating baby chubs. The older chubs should also be dieing of old age, dieing from being caught and killed. If the baby chub population is indeed being killed off like you all have said. Then it won't hurt planting rainbows and cutthroat. 

Another thing fishing is just like big game hunting. Your not going to have guys come on here saying their catching big tigers. They will keep their mouth shut and let the online fishing community stay in the dark. 

The current plan isn't a 25 year plan either. Imho every year that goes by will only continue to get better. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

swbuckmaster said:


> You guys are talking in circles. First you complain of to many chubs. Then say the tiger trout have eaten all the baby chubs and are starving. Then say hey let's plant wipers to eat the baby chubs.
> 
> This is why the current plan is working. It's eliminating baby chubs. The older chubs should also be dieing of old age, dieing from being caught and killed. If the baby chub population is indeed being killed off like you all have said. Then it won't hurt planting rainbows and cutthroat.
> 
> ...


The UDWR also knows that the plan isn't working as well as it might. That's why they're talking about planting bigger Tigers. The oldest chubs in the reservoir probably aren't more than 18 or 19 years old yet. If they were there when toasty found one in 1998. They could last another 8 or 10 years. The ones that were hatched in 2009, which is the earliest that the UDWR had anywhere near enough predators to impact the young of the year, they would be 7 years old. That leaves them with 20 or so years to go. If any of the chubs that hatched in 2012 survived, they've got another 25 years of life expectancy.



> From the UDWR's story on KSL.
> "We're going to reduce the number of cutthroat we're stocking, and we're going to try and stock a much larger tiger trout," Hart said. "Hopefully we'll get better survival rates because they were an important predator in here at one time, but they've seemed to kind of become scarce."
> 
> Scofield Reservoir traditionally has been a family-friendly rainbow trout fishing spot. Now, the rainbow trout are almost eradicated due to the Utah chub, which compete for the same food, Black said.
> ...


Until the chubs are _ELIMINATED_ it won't do much good to plant Rainbow Trout. That's why the UDWR hasn't planted them for the last 3 years.

The Wipers aren't just going to eat baby, or young of the year chubs. They're very good at eating larger chubs. But I still don't think the growing season, or lack thereof will make Wipers very effective. Minersville is at 5,500 feet elevation. Otter Creek is at 6,372 feet. Scofield is at 7,600 feet. Panguitch sits at 8,219'.

As for people keeping their mouths shut about catching big Tigers. Well when the UDWR netted one about 8 or 9 pounds two years ago they plastered it all over the internet. When the record was broken three years ago it was all over the news. I know people who have tried to catch the big ones. They've quit wasting their time. If the world wide web was the only place that I paid attention to, I might agree that there are people catching big Tigers and keeping it all hush hush. It just ain't happening.

But obviously I'm wrong. Scofield is a fantastic fishery. People are driving past Otter Creek to go there. The boat ramp is always busy. The ice off fishing was off the hook. People were standing shoulder to shoulder to fish. Oh, wait. That is what it used to look like before the chubs and the current plan. Now people drive past Scofield to go to the little lakes on the Energy Loop. Or they go to Otter Creek, Deer Creek or Strawberry. I hope you are happy with the way it is. Because what you see is what you've got. For another 25 years. And whatever the UDWR says about it being sooner than that, remember that the 25 year wait is what THEY expected at Starvation.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Chubs are in the rivers... so how far upstream do you go when you start with the Rotenone to get them all?

-DallanC


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool (Sep 15, 2007)

I didn't realize I was opening such a can of worms with this subject. It has been very insightful though and I appreciate the dialogue that has occurred. It sounds like the plan will not be changing anytime soon so we are stuck with what we've got. I guess I'll continue learning Strawberry and Deer Creek. Thanks gents.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

DallanC said:


> Chubs are in the rivers... so how far upstream do you go when you start with the Rotenone to get them all?
> 
> -DallanC


To get them all, you would have to poison all inlets all the way to their source....and, you would have to do it at least two years in a row.

Poisoning the reservoir would be a one time thing and they wouldn't expect to get all the chubs. But, they would get enough of a headstart that the trout would be a leg up on the chubs and probably be able to control them (like Strawberry).


----------



## USMARINEhuntinfool (Sep 15, 2007)

Hey gents, they're asking for fisherman input via an online survey, see here http://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-news/1862-share-your-fishing-ideas-with-the-dwr.html

At the end there is an input request. If you're so inclined drop a line about Scofield, I did maybe if we blow it up they'll consider something else. Happy fishing.


----------



## CaneHunter (Oct 10, 2013)

I fished Scofield again Friday evening. It was perfect weather, very little to no wind, green scenery all around the reservoir...and it was silent as could be. 

No one in the booth at the north entrance, no one parked at the Madsen Bay ramp. To my knowledge there wasn't anyone else fishing the lake....normally that would make for a perfect day, but in this case with perfect weather and perfect conditions on the first Friday in June it just left me in shock at how little activity there is on that water now. Sad really.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

CaneHunter said:


> I fished Scofield again Friday evening. It was perfect weather, very little to no wind, green scenery all around the reservoir...and it was silent as could be.
> 
> No one in the booth at the north entrance, no one parked at the Madsen Bay ramp. To my knowledge there wasn't anyone else fishing the lake....normally that would make for a perfect day, but in this case with perfect weather and perfect conditions on the first Friday in June it just left me in shock at how little activity there is on that water now. Sad really.


Well, they're saving money. They don't need anyone in the booth if there isn't anyone bothering to launch boats. Maybe there will be enough people who want to camp without bothering to fish. Sad, pathetic, horrible, miserable, etc.

I talked to a guy whose father-in-law has a cabin up there. His father-in-law said it was a ghost town on Memorial Day weekend. How long do we have to put up with this?

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I thought that Scofield turned into a private pond with all the homes around it. 

As you said you don't ever see anyone fishing it anymore and would figure that it is all private property.


----------



## toasty (May 15, 2008)

CaneHunter said:


> I fished Scofield again Friday evening. It was perfect weather, very little to no wind, green scenery all around the reservoir...and it was silent as could be.
> 
> No one in the booth at the north entrance, no one parked at the Madsen Bay ramp. To my knowledge there wasn't anyone else fishing the lake....normally that would make for a perfect day, but in this case with perfect weather and perfect conditions on the first Friday in June it just left me in shock at how little activity there is on that water now. Sad really.


So how was the fishing?


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

CaneHunter said:


> I fished Scofield again Friday evening. It was perfect weather, very little to no wind, green scenery all around the reservoir...and it was silent as could be.
> 
> No one in the booth at the north entrance, no one parked at the Madsen Bay ramp. To my knowledge there wasn't anyone else fishing the lake....normally that would make for a perfect day, but in this case with perfect weather and perfect conditions on the first Friday in June it just left me in shock at how little activity there is on that water now. Sad really.


Everybody was in Southwest Wyoming this weekend.

Saturday was Wyoming free fishing day and then that night some Wyoming dummy posted a big fish he caught on Facebook.

uh....actually he didn't catch the fish on Facebook, he caught the fish in Uinta County Wyoming and then put a picture of it on Facebook.

.


----------



## CaneHunter (Oct 10, 2013)

toasty said:


> So how was the fishing?


You like to catch chubs? Haha.

The first fish we caught was a chub. We cut it up and threw it out there, hoping we were in business. First cast brought a bite within seconds. The lack of fight on the other end told us it wasn't a big tiger. It was confirmed upon reeling it in that it was just another chub.

We caught quite a few chubs but only one trout, a really tiny rainbow right before we left.


----------

