# Lower Fish Creek



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Have you or do you now fish Lower Fish Creek below the Scofield Dam?

Well, some of the property has changed hands and is now PRIVATE

https://wildlife.utah.gov/news/utah...s-enforce-trespass-laws-lower-fish-creek.html

If you have a Facebook account there is some good comments about it

https://www.facebook.com/UtahDWR/photos/a.217901661554187/3971668836177432/?type=3&theater

.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

I just saw this article. Bummer.


----------



## taxidermist (Sep 11, 2007)

Years ago it was a great place to catch some nice fish. I liked jump shooting Mallards through that stretch. Guess that's gone now.


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

I fished it a lot back in the 80's when I lived in Price. Too bad the new owners figure that they need to keep everyone out. 

To me it sounds like some more out of state folks bought the property and decided to keep it for themselves.


----------



## browntrout (Apr 27, 2008)

Very sad. Sold out by the DWR. Utah has very few true blue ribbon rivers. With a few years of snow pack the river would have returned to great form. The DWR access area for fishing was ruined by two beaver dams. I have great memories that my children and grandchildren will not experience.


----------



## Brookie (Oct 26, 2008)

Disappointed. I was going to take my son this spring to relive some memories of my dad taking me.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

browntrout said:


> Very sad. Sold out by the DWR. Utah has very few true blue ribbon rivers. With a few years of snow pack the river would have returned to great form. The DWR access area for fishing was ruined by two beaver dams. I have great memories that my children and grandchildren will not experience.


Could you expand on why you feel the DWR "sold out"? I'm not very familiar with this area, or situation. What happened? How is the DWR to blame for this? thanks.


----------



## browntrout (Apr 27, 2008)

PBH said:


> Could you expand on why you feel the DWR "sold out"? I'm not very familiar with this area, or situation. What happened? How is the DWR to blame for this? thanks.


PBH - Here is the link for Utah CWMU - Only a very small part of the CWMU touches the creek. But this makes the area not passable downriver. So therefore not able to fish. CWMU is in cooperation with the DWR. Why didn't the DWR make this small area of the CWMU passable as an exception so we could still fish the area. If I am incorrect I will be the first to apologize.

We have so few true blue ribbon river fisheries. So the best part of LFC is now off limits.

https://wildlife.utah.gov/cwmu.html


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

browntrout said:


> Only a very small part of the CWMU touches the creek. But this makes the area not passable downriver. So therefore not able to fish. CWMU is in cooperation with the DWR. Why didn't the DWR make this small area of the CWMU passable as an exception so we could still fish the area.












I'm assuming the small section you are talking about is actually part of Scofield East CWMU. That small section is NOT part of the WMA.

CWMUs are private property -- correct? And thus the private land owner certainly can restrict access to people without a permit for that unit -- which anglers probably don't. Thus, I don't see how the DWR could have done anything about this. This appears to be a landowner issue.

Help me out...is this the issue? A simple mistake between a CWMU vs. WMA?


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

Knowing Utah they'll still keep pumping money in to keep a blue ribbon steam for the new owners to enjoy and lease to an outfitter. Wonder if they (new owners) have a connection to SFW. 

Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

weaversamuel76 said:


> Knowing Utah they'll still keep pumping money in to keep a blue ribbon steam for the new owners to enjoy and lease to an outfitter.


did something happen to the WMA??


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

@PBH Are you suggesting that we keep investing and "hope" our efforts travel down steam where we can enjoy them? Hasn't the best fishing has always been at the top just below the dam and the first mile or so? The biggest fish I've seen have always been up there. Does your experience differ?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I've never fished it.

But I see no reason to not continue efforts, particularly on the WMA section. We wouldn't be able to control whether the fish swim up or down stream...

I'm still confused. The section of river being discussed has always been private, correct?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

Yes, that section has always been private. The WMA is still there and nothing has changed with it.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

This is an unfortunate situation, but I think the criticism of the state is misguided on this one. And I'm not one that is shy of criticizing the state when it comes to stream access! 

A property owner decided to close private property that had previously been left open to the public. That is not the DWR or the state's fault, in my estimation. 

And yes, they should still maintain the blue ribbon fishery.


----------



## gdog (Sep 13, 2007)

Maybe Im missing something but in the summer they reduce the flow to a trickle and it turns into **** near stagnant river(?) Last two times I fished it, it wasn't worth the gas money to get down there.


----------



## TOgden (Sep 10, 2007)

It is the Scofield Canyons CWMU that is the one limiting the access.
From what I understand the CWMU operator (listed as residing in Kansas) is the one that requested the DWR to start enforcing the no trespass law.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

To say it is a blue ribbon fishery is laughable. for decades this was my family's private fishing hole as a family friend owned the access that is now owned by the DWR driving down from Beaver, it was awesome back then and even for a decade plus afterwards. About 10 years ago the water flow/oxygen was too low and all the browns all died off. It is still a very pretty area, but fishing is crap.
The landowner certainly has every right to shut off access, however I dont believe that own a certain 12' wide tract wear a train may just travel through. I just looked up the county parcel map and it doesn't show that the UP owns their portion, but I believe they do, if that is the case then the UP would have to also ask trespassers be cited. IF they only have an easement then that would very much change this statement. Maybe our resident UP employee can add some color.


----------



## weaversamuel76 (Feb 16, 2017)

Huge29 said:


> To say it is a blue ribbon fishery is laughable. for decades this was my family's private fishing hole as a family friend owned the access that is now owned by the DWR driving down from Beaver, it was awesome back then and even for a decade plus afterwards. About 10 years ago the water flow/oxygen was too low and all the browns all died off. It is still a very pretty area, but fishing is crap.
> The landowner certainly has every right to shut off access, however I dont believe that own a certain 12' wide tract wear a train may just travel through. I just looked up the county parcel map and it doesn't show that the UP owns their portion, but I believe they do, if that is the case then the UP would have to also ask trespassers be cited. IF they only have an easement then that would very much change this statement. Maybe our resident UP employee can add some color.


...









Sent from my moto z3 using Tapatalk


----------



## alaska (Mar 22, 2020)

This is sad, but better to be safe for now than sorry. I hope they reopen soon.


----------



## browntrout (Apr 27, 2008)

So fisherman have been walking the RR tracks at LFC for 50 years and now they cannot walk the tracks?


----------



## Critter (Mar 20, 2010)

You have never been able to walk them legally 

Sent from my SM-J737V using Tapatalk


----------



## browntrout (Apr 27, 2008)

PBH said:


> I'm assuming the small section you are talking about is actually part of Scofield East CWMU. That small section is NOT part of the WMA.
> 
> CWMUs are private property -- correct? And thus the private land owner certainly can restrict access to people without a permit for that unit -- which anglers probably don't. Thus, I don't see how the DWR could have done anything about this. This appears to be a landowner issue.
> 
> Help me out...is this the issue? A simple mistake between a CWMU vs. WMA?


PBH,
I believe the issue is with Scofield Canyons CWMU. The article posted on KSL.com stated the "posted" area was 700 yards below the dam. Sorry for the delayed answer.


----------

