# LFC - no water outflow?



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

What the hell is this? I thought the DWR had purchased minimum stream flow water rights to protect the fishery? Now I hear from a friend who copied the "weekly fishing report" that says the water flow is basically non existant and that the fish are basically trapped in any number of deeper pools.... is there no water coming out of Scofield at this point?


----------



## mityrojo (Mar 28, 2008)

RR,

I have been fishing LFC since the 60's, this has happened on and off over the years and the river has always survived. In fact it used to happen more often than not.
There are several springs that feed the river from about the 1st RR bridge and down from there for a ways. This increases the flow down there a little, but not a whole lot. 

Not to worry! The river should be fine. From the Dam down for about the 1st mile right now it will look like a trickle.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

mityrojo said:


> RR,
> 
> I have been fishing LFC since the 60's, this has happened on and off over the years and the river has always survived. In fact it used to happen more often than not.
> There are several springs that feed the river from about the 1st RR bridge and down from there for a ways. This increases the flow down there a little, but not a whole lot.
> ...


As long as its not killing the fishing, then I'm down with that. I used to fish it a lot, including during some of the extreme drawdowns but when I heard there was no water coming out, I just thought it was hosed.... glad to hear its not. You don't happen to know if the ice is off the water yet do you?


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

Even if it does kill some of the fish, it would probably be a good thing for the river. A lower population means larger average size. Just look at the Middle Provo back in the days before minimum flows were implemented on Jordanelle....


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> Even if it does kill some of the fish, it would probably be a good thing for the river. A lower population means larger average size. Just look at the Middle Provo back in the days before minimum flows were implemented on Jordanelle....


What doesnt help is the DWR putting 15OOO baby browns in there each year. Oh well though there are still some nice ones in there, hopefully they do ok with the lower flows.


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

Nor-tah said:


> flyguy7 said:
> 
> 
> > Even if it does kill some of the fish, it would probably be a good thing for the river. A lower population means larger average size. Just look at the Middle Provo back in the days before minimum flows were implemented on Jordanelle....
> ...


That just means our method of feeding the big ones will be spot on since all they're chowing on is babies... :twisted:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Nor-tah and flyguy7, are you guys saying you want fewer fish per mile so as to have bigger fish?


----------



## Riverrat77 (Sep 7, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> Nor-tah and flyguy7, are you guys saying you want fewer fish per mile so as to have bigger fish?


Oh no... you're going to turn this into some fewer elk is bigger elk thing or something like that huh? :lol: Just kidding Bart.


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

Riverrat77 said:


> proutdoors said:
> 
> 
> > Nor-tah and flyguy7, are you guys saying you want fewer fish per mile so as to have bigger fish?
> ...


 8) Nope, just an honest question. You/I got blasted over our views on HB187 alleging we weren't looking out for the majority of fishermen in Utah. I'm just curious of advocating fewer fish in streams/rivers is looking out for the majority of fishermen in Utah or not. I am unclear, because I've been told I'm not a 'real' fisherman, so I'm asking for clarification. :wink:


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

I'll bite. While I support the DWR in most things, I think there are certain places that need less stocking. This is a fully selfish desire since it is not what is best for the general public. The general public for example likes to go to Trail and pull out 30 planters a day. I do not. I am all for a system say in the boulders where they stock the lakes once every 4 years. This would= bigger fish. I think the same is true with the provo and LFC. The fish spawn there so let them do it and let the river take care of it. If fish populations suffer then implement with stocking. This is not the case for all waters but I think it would produce bigger fish on the boulder and LFC. IMHO. FLyguy will probably have a better respose since he spends so much time on the river.

What do you got Pro? have at it. -oOo- :wink:


----------



## proutdoors (Sep 24, 2007)

I was/am just curious. :wink:


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

I'd say more food than fish is better than the alternative.

I'm no expert on LFC having only fished it a few times, but each time I've visited, the amount of tiny browns in there was staggering.

As far as shutting off the water, they're probably excited to fill up Scofield again. I know I am. Think of all the shallow feeding that will occur as terrestrials are surprised and submerged in places that haven't seen water for a couple of years. 

The people fishing LFC will just have to be sneaky while creeping up to the deeper holes where the fish will concentrate. The fish will probably knock themselves out fighting for the offerings.
8)


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

the reason...
the dam repairs by reclamation are complete, fill restrictions are off the reservoir, they can now store more water and obviously are doing just that. so minimum releases till further notice, likely till may.


----------



## Nor-tah (Dec 16, 2007)

proutdoors said:


> I was/am just curious. :wink:


Fair enough.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

I would take quality over quanity any day of the week. If I wanted to catch 100 fish a day, I would go to American Fork Creek every day in the summer. I choose a place to fish because of quality, setting, or technique used to catch them. Having lots of fish in a river is not necessarily a good thing for a fishery. Every river has a carrying capacity. This is the maximum amount of fish that a stream can sustain based on habitat and available food. This is commonplace in Utah. Brown trout are prolific spawners and many times reproduce faster than the food source can sustain. 

The middle Provo is a perfect example of too much human involvement having a negative impact on the fishery. Back in the "glory days" of the middle Provo (mid to late 90's), the average size was huge after the construction of Jordanelle dam. The state became interested in this "new" fishery and implemented minimum flows of 125 cfs and started the Provo River Restoration Project in 1999(32 million dollars, 8 years of work). The project was designed to take out wingdams and riprap structure out of the river and put the natural bends back into it. This created huge amounts of habitat for juvenile fish and the population exploded. The minimum flows also made for higher recruitment. When the flows would drop to next to nothing, the immature fish would be pushed into the same holding water as the mature fish. Predation was high and therefore the fish that did survive grew up to be big, healthy adults. The population was then able to manage itself at a healthy level. With all of the construction going on in the river, siltation became another big issue, especially on the lower river from Midway to charleston. The upper river has an insect biomass that consists primarily of small insects such as Baetis mayflies, Midges, Pale Morning Duns, and smaller caddis. These insects do very well in tailwaters, even where siltation is a problem and currently the average size of fish from the dam down about two miles has began to rebound. The middle river down to charleston is another story. The larger macro invertebrates such as Golden Stones, Green Drakes, Skwala Stoneflies, Yellow Sallies, and larger caddis. These bugs need clean cobblestone bottoms to do well and thanks to siltation, the amounts of these larger insects dropped through the floor. With the lack of food and prime spawning conditions, these fish had a hard time growing ard are still surrering to this day. There are some very nice fish on this stretch, but the majority are stunted browns that haven't been able to get out of that 10-13 inch range. Over time more and more big fish are showing up every year, but the majority of the fish are still stunted. The DWR changed regs on the lower river to bair, 4 fish any size several years ago but this is not the answer. I wish it was. Very high spring runoff flushes (around 2,000 cfs will have a much more positive impact on this stretch. Last year, instead of duing one great big blowout, they ran the river relatively high (500-750 cfs) for a long period of time. THese flows are not even close to being high enough to flush the river. Just compare those flows to the upper provo that can get as high as 4,000 cfs. 

Many times I have made my stance known in regards to rainbows and how the DWR goes to great lengths to go away from go with hatchery clones like tiger trout. All you have to do is fish the lower provo for a day. There are signs up everywhere encouraging anglers to keep fish because the fish are stunted and there are too many fish in the lower. If that was the case then why are the rainbows doing so **** well down there. These 'bows have ridiculous growth rates. Many of the rainbows you catch have tiny heads with great big bodies. If there is not enough food to go around, then why to the rainbows have bellies that are growing faster than their heads. I had a buddy measure a fish the other day with a 18" length with a 13" girth. I don't think that fish has missed many meals. 

There are many rivers in the state without special regs, minimum flows, and relatively small populations. These rivers grow big fish and should serve as a model as to what fish should look like. I could care less if I catch a bunch of them. I would rather catch a few fish from 16" to 22" than several dozen dinks any day of the week. Wouldn't it be nice to have fish this size more of the rule rather than the exception on LFC?


----------

