# Scofield



## Springville Shooter

Whoever decided to load Scofield up with Wipers......THANK YOU!!!----SS


----------



## DallanC

Thats the end of that lake as a trout fishery. Muskies will polish the remaining ones off. I would have rather they poisoned it and started over. I loved trout fishing there.


-DallanC


----------



## Critter

The DOW claims that they will stock rainbows up to 17" to also help out. At least according to this news release they say that a catchable rainbow that they plant else where are 8"-10" and the one that they'll stock at Scofield will be 10" longer. It could get interesting up there in a couple of years

https://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-news/2093-three-new-fish-species-at-scofield.html


----------



## Fishrmn

Springville Shooter said:


> Whoever decided to load Scofield up with Wipers......THANK YOU!!!----SS


If they plant them 12 inches long they might survive. Will they do all that well? I've got my doubts. And define load up?



Critter said:


> The DOW claims that they will stock rainbows up to 17" to also help out. At least according to this news release they say that a catchable rainbow that they plant else where are 8"-10" and the one that they'll stock at Scofield will be 10" longer. It could get interesting up there in a couple of years
> 
> https://wildlife.utah.gov/wildlife-news/2093-three-new-fish-species-at-scofield.html


I read that just a little bit differently. It says they will plant them *several inches* larger than they usually plant in other waters.



> Rainbow trout still play an essential role in Scofield's future. Next year, the DWR will stock rainbow trout that are several inches longer than those stocked in other waters. (Catchable rainbows stocked in other waters are usually 8 to 10 inches long.)


Several inches longer than 8 inches could be 12 inches. Or they might dump the nasty looking brood stock in there, and think that will make things all better.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## toasty

I was hoping for complete treatment. I hope this new plan works, but I fear this will only prolong the poor fishing for many more years.


----------



## Critter

Once those tiger muskies and wipers get going the chub population is going to be in a world of hurt. Those muskies will eat the larger chubs that the rainbows and cutthroats don't. 

It will then all depend on what size rainbows the DOW plants.


----------



## BG1

The Muskie will be 7" long. What are they gonna eat? They'll probably fail because the chubs will eat all their food before they can get big enough. Same with all the other predator fry. Stupid cheap way to prolong the doom.


----------



## Springville Shooter

DallanC said:


> Thats the end of that lake as a trout fishery. Muskies will polish the remaining ones off. I would have rather they poisoned it and started over. I loved trout fishing there.
> 
> -DallanC


I would agree with this if I had any faith that it would work. I too would rather have a killer trout fishery. However, I'd rather have a killer Wiper fishery than what we have now. Also, they can poison at any time in the future if the results of this effort prove unsatisfactory.

I love Wipers for the fight and the food and I have no doubt that they will get HUGE on the Chubs and crawdads in Scofield.--------SS


----------



## DeadI

I hope it works out. I used to love fishing there in the summer, fall and ice fishing.
I know they have introduced the wipers to other lakes with chub problems and they are doing well. But they are also getting large trout again. Minersville I believe is one of them.

Also there are other lakes with Walleye and trout and the trout are quite large (starvation) so I hope that this will work here at Scofield as well. Time will tell.


----------



## Fishrmn

The UDWR is putting a whole lot more into this than I expected. Growing Tiger Muskies to 7 inches in length is probably rather expensive. I thought I remembered that they said the cost of a structure to stop fish from going downstream was almost as much as rotenone would cost. They've put Muskies in, even before they have the screen, or whatever, in place.

I would like to believe that Wipers will be a great addition to Scofield. They are a great invention. They've done wonders at Minersville. But for much the same reason that Springville Shooter mentioned that he was up in the mountains the other day and needed a sweatshirt, I don't think they'll do very well at Scofield. It's getting cold at that elevation. Well, maybe not cold, but cooler. It's 49°F. at the dam as I write this. Cold is coming soon enough. Wiper fishing in Willard Bay doesn't really get going until May. And the ice comes off of Willard in February or _early _March. I'm guessing the Wipers in Scofield will have about 5 months of activity, and 7 months of dormancy. I hope I'm wrong. I'd love to get a hold of a 5 or 6 pound Wiper under the ice.

One thing is for sure. Things are happening at Scofield, where there has been nothing for the last few years. I guess I'd better run to Sportsman's Warehouse and spend a couple of grand on Musky lures, nets, pliers, rods, reels, lines, lures for Wipers, bottom bouncers for Walleyes, etc.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## Fishrmn

Just saw the blurb on ksl.com. It says they've installed the screen.
https://www.ksl.com/?sid=45701874&nid=1288

The clock is ticking. Five years.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## Catherder

Of the new plants in Scofield, I think the tiger muskies will do the best. They are certainly cold tolerant and obviously, there is plenty to eat. For the reasons already discussed, I'm skeptical about the wipers and I'm not sure if the walleyes will go gangbusters up there or not. 

Regardless, I would have preferred they rotenone it and we do know that chubs live up to 25 years and predator based controls work slowly, when they work at all. I'm not expecting to have a viable trout fishery back in there in the 5 years allotted but hey, at least the musky folks will get some enjoyment out of the lake.


----------



## DallanC

Catherder said:


> Of the new plants in Scofield, I think the tiger muskies will do the best. They are certainly cold tolerant and obviously, there is plenty to eat. For the reasons already discussed, I'm skeptical about the wipers and I'm not sure if the walleyes will go gangbusters up there or not.
> 
> Regardless, I would have preferred they rotenone it and we do know that chubs live up to 25 years and predator based controls work slowly, when they work at all. I'm not expecting to have a viable trout fishery back in there in the 5 years allotted but hey, at least the musky folks will get some enjoyment out of the lake.


How did it turn out for Yuba. They introduced Tiger Muskie to help with the perch overpopulation... in a few years, there was no overpopulation of perch, there just weren't any perch. Then the Tigers ate everything else, then started starving to death and most died out.

Epic failure.

Scofield is the perfect lake for a rotenone treatment, its small without a huge amount of outflow.

How do wipers fare under ice for prolonged periods of time? I thought I read they were not as tolerant of the lower oxygen in the water that happens from ice over.

-DallanC


----------



## johnnycake

DallanC said:


> How did it turn out for Yuba. They introduced Tiger Muskie to help with the perch overpopulation... in a few years, there was no overpopulation of perch, there just weren't any perch. Then the Tigers ate everything else, then started starving to death and most died out.
> 
> Epic failure.
> 
> Scofield is the perfect lake for a rotenone treatment, its small without a huge amount of outflow.
> 
> How do wipers fare under ice for prolonged periods of time? I thought I read they were not as tolerant of the lower oxygen in the water that happens from ice over.
> 
> -DallanC


I think you mean they planted pike in Yuba, not muskie. Since the pike were able to reproduce they exploded, plus the wide swings in water levels at Yuba are on average way worse than what commonly occurs at Scofield.

Didn't they already rotenone Scofield in the last 20 years? And it didn't work? Why keep trying the same thing that already failed to be a solution?


----------



## Fishrmn

johnnycake said:


> I think you mean they planted pike in Yuba, not muskie. Since the pike were able to reproduce they exploded, plus the wide swings in water levels at Yuba are on average way worse than what commonly occurs at Scofield.
> 
> Didn't they already rotenone Scofield in the last 20 years? And it didn't work? Why keep trying the same thing that already failed to be a solution?


They've poisoned Scofield 3 times that I know of. And each and every one was a HUGE SUCCESS. The failure comes when chubs get back in there. The next failure is already poised to occur. They've decided that the chubs are a good thing, and only need to be reduced in numbers. That's where the WHOLE problem with chubs started. If some moron hadn't put them in places like Strawberry and Scofield we wouldn't be having this problem in the first place. The last rotenone treatment at Scofield was more like 26 years ago, but somehow the chubs came back. Were they brought back by someone?

Strawberry and Panguitch Reservoirs are the best examples of what can be accomplished with rotenone and predators combined.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## DallanC

johnnycake said:


> Didn't they already rotenone Scofield in the last 20 years? And it didn't work? Why keep trying the same thing that already failed to be a solution?


1991 was when it was last treated. And around the mid to late 90's scofield was probably the best fishery in the state. You could load up on 3-4lbers. While I am against slot limits, they should have protected the older / bigger fish better to prey on small chubs.

Whats interesting, is there WERE walleye in Scofield previous to 1991 and their removal was one targets of the poisoning. I find the following quote to be interesting in light of them purposely reintroducing walleye again.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/185029/DWR-BEGINS-TREATMENT-OF-SCOFIELD-RESERVOIR.html



> Another target fish was the walleye. Once walleye establish themselves in a water they can wipe out the trout population.


+1 to Fishermn. Clock is ticking and IMO we just lost +5 years and will still have to retreat it.

-DallanC


----------



## sawsman

I wonder what will be done with the chubs in the river below over time?

:noidea:


.


----------



## johnnycake

Fishrmn said:


> They've poisoned Scofield 3 times that I know of. And each and every one was a HUGE SUCCESS. The failure comes when chubs get back in there. The next failure is already poised to occur.
> 
> ⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


Seems like having to repeat an expensive process multiple times is a short term success, long term failure. By establishing species that can combat the likely unstoppable returns of chubs to the lake, that seems like a more long term efficient solution to me. The fact that these new additions are also excellent sportfish and great table fare is just an added bonus.


----------



## Catherder

A few comments.

1. RE: "They introduced Tiger Muskie to help with the perch overpopulation..."
and "I think you mean they planted pike in Yuba"

It should be pointed out that the pike in Yuba were already there, coming from upstream sources at Redmond reservoir and the water below there. When Yuba refilled, they took advantage of the ideal spawning conditions, had a couple years of exceptional reproduction and rapidly became well established. They were not planted. Likewise, the eventual subsequent collapse of the perch population, despite hard work by the DWR, was caused by multiple factors as well including poor spawning habitat, carp, low water and yes, certainly pike. Comparing what happened there to what may happen at Scofield is probably apples to oranges. Also, the species used in Scofield do not reproduce, so numbers won't explode.

2. RE" Seems like having to repeat an expensive process multiple times is a short term success, long term failure. " and "Strawberry and Panguitch Reservoirs are the best examples of what can be accomplished with rotenone and predators combined."

The first above statement is often said by opponent of rotenone. However, Fishrmn's statement is exactly right. Rotenone followed by an appropriate slot limit has worked *every* time the DWR has done it here. Strawberry and Panguitch (pre fire) are 2 of our very best fisheries, even with sustaining some crazy fishing pressure. There is no experimentation here, there is just an excellent track record. If folks really want the wipers and TM< they could even be added back in post treatment, although cutts and tigers are fully capable of doing the job.

Now contrast this to the current plan. I sure hope for the best and am glad they are at least putting the fish in there, as opposed to the previous inertia, since they refuse to poison it, but it is far from proven that it will work.

1. Tiger muskies: Yes, they will thrive there and will get large. However, where in Utah have they decimated their prey base sufficient to what is hoped for here? Not in Pineview (always has lots of panfish and bullhead cats in abundance), not Joes Valley (chubs), Johnson, Newton or others I'm familiar with.

2. Wipers; will they be able to wipe out the chubs when they are dormant half the year as previously pointed out? we shall see. Personally, I'm skeptical.

3. Walleyes, They may do Ok in the lake but how long does it take for walleyes to do the job? Lakes like Starvation provide an example. There were still big chubs in Starvation 20 years after introduction. This was even with a huge explosion of walleye numbers. Walleyes simply cannot eat the biggest chubs and they are numerous and keep breeding. The eyes will eat the young ones but we will be stuck waiting for the big chubs to die off naturally. It could take quite a while. While slightly different, Jordanelle is similar. Smallies, perch and browns, eat all the young chubs but there is still a decent population of huge chubs that show up every year in the gill net surveys and are caught by anglers. These fish are old and eventually will pass on, but when was Jordanelle dam built? The late 90's? How long do we have to wait for Scofield? (obviously, 5 years, minimum)

The point is that it is far from a sure thing that these warmwater predators will get the job done, but rotenone , then a slot limit has a proven track record.

I suppose there are plenty of other places to fish but the "old" Scofield used to be a lot of fun, and it was an hour from home, so quick trips were nice.


----------



## swbuckmaster

I think it will be a success. The dwr is doing a heck of a good job in utah when it comes to big fish. In fact in my lifetime it has never been this good especially if you step away from power bait. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Fishrmn

Seems kinda like planting a garden without bothering to pull any of the weeds.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## swbuckmaster

You pull the weeds/bait fish you won't get any big fish. Big fish don't eat bugs!

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## PBH

swbuckmaster said:


> You pull the weeds/bait fish you won't get any big fish. Big fish don't eat bugs!
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


Since when?

Look at Lee's Ferry and the Colorado River back in the mid 70's. That place was pumping out 10lb rainbows left and right -- and they were eating only aquatic insects!

but, that's not what we're wanting here. Even with rotenone, a 100% kill would not necessarily be the end goal.

Using the garden analogy from above, would any of you plant your garden without first pulling all the weeds? If you have a garden spot already inundated with weeds, would you ever expect your sown seeds to establish and produce anything? No! You weed it first, give your seeds an opportunity to establish first, then work on the weeds as they start to show up -- and you make every attempt to stay ahead of those weeds. If the weeds start to take over, your garden is lost. Just like fish.


----------



## swbuckmaster

This isn't a weed garden! It's a predator/prey fishery. It will be a very good one in a few years despite the chubs.

Sorry pbh but I don't get my rocks off fishing for dink fish. 
As popular as Scofield is or was it will never have big rainbows like some lake in the 70's had. Too many people!

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## PBH

swbuckmaster said:


> This isn't a weed garden! It's a predator/prey fishery. It will be a very good one in a few years despite the chubs.
> 
> Sorry pbh but I don't get my rocks off fishing for dink fish.
> As popular as Scofield is or was it will never have big rainbows like some lake in the 70's had. Too many people!
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


It's not a predator / prey fishery either. It's a trash fishery overrun with what you call "prey". Where are the predators?

We all want quality (ie: "big fish"). Why can't you have a quality fishery with high pressure? Panguitch certainly works. So does Strawberry. Hell, Henry's Lake works pretty well too. I don't see why Scofield couldn't. Pressure isn't the limiting factor in quality fish at Scofield. Rough fish competition is.

there is no doubt that a couple tiger musky will grow and thrive in Scofield. But a couple fish certainly will not impact that fishery in any significant way.

Any of you know how many years the DWR stocked tiger musky in Johnson Reservoir before anglers started catching them? Scofield will be poisoned sooner than that amount of time...


----------



## DallanC

Yup, I still feel this is a mistake. 

I still cant get over them championing the addition of walleye when in the article I linked, when the previous poisoning it was to get rid of walleye and other trash fish.

I guess new younger people who dont know their history are replacing older wiser guys who retired.

-DallanC


----------



## DallanC

On a side note, I dont want to come down on the DWR too hard with regard to fishing. Fishing is exceptional in this state in the vast majority of areas. I love how much its improved and how open people like Drew are to input (and acting on it when it makes sense).


-DallanC


----------



## Critter

Do any of you remember the old boat shacks that used to be around Scofield, Strawberry, and Deer Creek back in the 60's? 

There was always a huge rainbow that was mounted or a few dozen pictures of them hanging on the walls. Then in the fall of the years you always saw those cigar smoking 60+ year old men out in a boat trolling a set of pop gear hoping for that fish of a lifetime once they came out of the deep water. 

You just don't see that very much anymore. 


On big fish eating bugs, the vast majority of big fish 5lbs+ that I have caught and kept were full of small green bugs and fresh water shrimp. They will just eat them until they can't eat anymore.


----------



## DallanC

I've spent more than my share of time at Clarks Camp . We also had a semi-permanent trailer parked where the new beach area is at Deer Creek for summers of fishing fun.

Those were fun times.


-DallanC


----------



## swbuckmaster

Pbh funny you mention Johnson reservoir. Ya that lake sucks! Don't go there! Scofield will look like that lake in less than 3 years. I can't wait!
Nothing like catching 6 to 15lb trout and 40" plus muskie from the bank. 



Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## PBH

swbuckmaster said:


> Pbh funny you mention Johnson reservoir. Ya that lake sucks! Don't go there! Scofield will look like that lake in less than 3 years. I can't wait!
> Nothing like catching 6 to 15lb trout and 40" plus muskie from the bank.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


How many years of stocking TM's before anglers started catching any?

Hint: 10

The current plan is to rotenone Scofield after 5 years if nothing changes.
You won't be seeing those TMs being caught from Scofield in 5 years.


----------



## swbuckmaster

PBH 5 years is all that lake needs. Cant Wait! In the meantime you can fish your 12" rainbows with power bait at almost any other reservoir in the state. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## PBH

swbuckmaster said:


> PBH 5 years is all that lake needs. *Cant Wait*! In the meantime you can fish your 12" rainbows with power bait at almost any other reservoir in the state.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


Where did you get the idea that I want to catch rainbows in Scofield?

To the contrary, I want to see TM's in Scofield. I hope to the high heavens that wipers can survive at that elevation. I'm fine with sterile walleye. I wouldn't pass up the opportunity at cutthroat, rainbows, and tiger trout larger than 12" -- and I would use powerbait if that's what was needed to catch them.

You have me, and I'm assuming many others, all wrong.

We, including YOU by your comment above, don't want to wait another 5 years to catch those fish. And this plan means that we will have to wait. We want those large tiger musky, piggy wipers, and cookie cutter walleye NEXT YEAR. Why wait??? We don't have to wait any longer. All we have to do is dump a little rotenone in RIGHT NOW. Kill the majority (not all) of the chubs. Immediately following the rotenone, re-stock with tm's, wipers, walleye, cutthroat, tiger trout....

....and then let's go fishing next summer!

why on God's green earth do you guys want to wait 5 years??? You even said it in your comment above: Can't wait!

I'm tired of waiting.
Why are we waiting?

:sad:


----------



## DallanC

I'll let a secret out of the bag: Tigers in Scofield are the stupid'ish fish on the planet (IMO). 

You want to catch a BOAT LOAD of the dumb things, on a bright sunny day, dead stick a worm 10-15ft over the side of an anchored boat in its shadow. Those things will come up and just sit in the boats shadow. With polarized glasses you can see them sitting there under the boat. Its easy to catch limits per hour. 

I really dislike tigers personally, very ugly fish.


Scofield used to be my absolute favorite fish... until the slot limit went in effect. At that point I went back to strawberry and learned to fish for Kokanee. When we want trout we hit up a new family favorite spot. Seen a couple +8'lbers come out of it this year alone. 


-DallanC


----------



## dubob

*It is what it is!*

I get that some of you disagree with the latest plan from UDWR for Scofield. And you are certainly within your rights to voice your disagreement on this site and others. And I would guess that all of you are aware that exercising your right to voice your disagreement on HERE is not going to change that plan in the least. It is what it is folks. It's a crap shoot for sure because nobody has a firm grasp on the end result. But none of the previous plans have worked LONG term. And as the saying goes, 'Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting Different Results.' So with the advise of a committee made up of professionals (DWR Employees) and fishing organizations from within the state, a new approach has been looked at and approved. And, like it or not, I believe it has been 'set in concrete.' To all you died in the wool Scofield fans, my most sincere condolences. It's going to be a very LONG 5 years for all y'all. And there isn't a single, sought after fish species in Scofield that can't be caught in some other Utah body of water. Tight lines to all of you and remember to take your kids fishing. :O--O:


----------



## PBH

dubob said:


> To all you died in the wool Scofield fans, my most sincere condolences. It's going to be a very LONG 5 years for all y'all.


sounds like you've come to the same conclusion as others have. This plan is a flawed plan, and the lake should be treated in 5 years.

Or, do you think it will take 5 years before any significant fish will be available to catch?

couldn't we accomplish the same goal in 2 years using rotenone?


----------



## dubob

PBH said:


> sounds like you've come to the same conclusion as others have. This plan is a flawed plan, and the lake should be treated in 5 years.
> 
> Or, do you think it will take 5 years before any significant fish will be available to catch?
> 
> couldn't we accomplish the same goal in 2 years using rotenone?


Sorry - I have no dog in this fight. Just trying to bring a little reality into the discussion. I have never fished Scofield and it is not on my bucket list.
While you and others WILL disagree, I think the plan process was/is sound based on my very limited knowledge of that body of water. If it dried up tomorrow, it wouldn't impact my fishing plans in the least. I've had my say and now I'll leave it alone. Carry on and tight lines to all y'all. :O--O:


----------



## Groganite

I dont know how many times they have poisoned scofield to "take care" of the chub problem, I'm glad they're finally stepping up their game and trying something new instead of the same 'ol same 'ol. Fish Creek should be interesting too, nothing like pulling a 5 pounder out of that lil creek on a grasshopper tied to 15ft of line on the end of a willow


----------



## Fishrmn

dubob said:


> Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting Different Results


If that's insanity, what is ignoring your own findings? The UDWR has proven what works to control chubs at 7620' elevation. Strawberry is the perfect example. Rotenone, followed by enough predators to keep the number of chubs in check. Panguitch is at 8,400', and they've used basically the same formula.

They've spent 12 years proving that they can't plant enough predators to reduce the number of chubs. The chubs have continued to increase and thrive at Scofield despite having planted nearly 700,000 Cutthroat Trout since 2014. And over 400,000 Tiger Trout since 2014.

And they know what happened at Starvation. It took almost 30 years for Walleyes to eliminate the chubs there.

They initially thought about planting Small Mouth Bass at Strawberry Reservoir. They figured out that the bass wouldn't thrive at that elevation. There are some Small Mouth Bass in Strawberry, but the UDWR didn't plant them. And they aren't doing much there. They survive, but they don't seem to be able to reproduce. I'm pretty sure that they spawn, but the fry don't grow big enough to survive the dormancy period from November until May.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## LOAH

It appears as though I'm in the minority of folks that are just fine with this plan. I believe that in two years, we will see dramatically less chubs and trout that are putting on weight, not to mention some round wipers.

Joe's Valley had TM stocked and it didn't take them 5 years to grow to 40", let alone big enough to eat big old chubs. You can still go to Joe's and catch trout in abundance. In fact, the trout I catch these days are a bit larger, on average, than the ones I used to catch before TM were introduced. JVR is a success in my book and it's only getting better.

I'm not sure if this three-pronged freak approach is the right answer for Scofield or not, but I'm definitely willing to wait and see, rather than poison the lake. If it doesn't work, that's still an option.

Scofield has already taken a dive for at least 5 years and this effort will provide the DWR with valuable data to use for years to come, especially if it works! While we wait, the new sterile species will have a chance to sink or swim. We will have some exciting new opportunities to catch aggressive hybrids and tasty sterile walleye from cold water.

It's a shame it came to this and I feel as though the old 8 fish limit they set for 2 consecutive years is probably what tilted the balance of power to the chubs' advantage in the first place. I am willing to see how it plays out.

I don't expect that the DWR will continue to heavily stock the TM, Wiper, and triploid walleye if they do their job and bring the chubs down to a population that can be managed by predatory trout, which I believe is the end goal; to reestablish an excellent trout fishery.

This will be worth the wait, I think.


----------



## Vanilla

PBH said:


> We, including YOU by your comment above, don't want to wait another 5 years to catch those fish. And this plan means that we will have to wait. We want those large tiger musky, piggy wipers, and cookie cutter walleye NEXT YEAR. Why wait??? We don't have to wait any longer. All we have to do is dump a little rotenone in RIGHT NOW. Kill the majority (not all) of the chubs. Immediately following the rotenone, re-stock with tm's, wipers, walleye, cutthroat, tiger trout....
> 
> ....and then let's go fishing next summer!
> 
> why on God's green earth do you guys want to wait 5 years??? You even said it in your comment above: Can't wait!
> 
> I'm tired of waiting.
> Why are we waiting?
> 
> :sad:


PBH- I have a question and need you to help me understand this one. Why will it take 5 years for the muskies to be catchable under this plan, but if they treated it and planted them we'd be catching them next summer? That might be an easy answer that I'm just missing, but I don't get it. Help a brother out!

I will readily admit I am not a fish biologist. I won't pretend to act like I know what the result is. But I do know Scofield sucks even compared to 5-7 years ago. So much so that I completely stopped fishing it. The prospect of catching muskies and wipers out of there on my fly rod has me excited to head back in a few years.

*EDIT- And PS, big fish eat small bugs. All the freaking time!


----------



## PBH

If you do not poison Scofield, you leave a lake that is currently full of rough fish.
If you then throw those predators in on top of that population, you will have very slow growth rates, not to mention much, much more competition with rough fish when angling.

If you knock those chubs and other rough fish back by 90%, and then come back with a heavy stocking of predators, you provide an environment where those predators have FAST growth rates. Further, those fish have to actively pursue prey -- which increases an angler's chance of hooking that actively hunting fish.

This all goes back to that same old analogy of a bucket. At Scofield, the bucket is already overflowing. You can't just add more fish to that bucket, and expect those fish to grow quickly. You have to dump some of those fish out first. If you knocked those chubs back first, then stocked with predators you'd have an environment with FAST growth rates.

It is fact that slow growth rates = small fish and fast growth rates = big fish.


----------



## PBH

Vanilla said:


> The prospect of catching muskies and wipers out of there [Scofield] on my fly rod has me excited to head back in a few years.


I would meet you there!



Vanilla said:


> And PS, big fish eat small bugs. All the freaking time!


Blue Whales get pretty dam big eating small bugs!
OK -- poor analogy.

I don't understand why many anglers continue to think that way. Obviously, some fish do require a pisciverous diet in order to grow large. But many fish do not. I don't know why people dismiss the rainbow trout fishery at Lee's Ferry back in the 70's. That's a great example of 10#+ rainbows (lots of them!) on a strictly insect diet. Further, look at places like Otter Creek, where under general regulations rainbow trout frequently grow to 5lbs, feeding on zooplankton!

Again, just like mentioned previously -- it's all about growth rates. Not prey base, but growth rates. If you adjust things correctly and get fish in the zone of maximum growth rate, you'll have big fish no matter the prey base!


----------



## Fishrmn

PBH said:


> Further, look at places like Otter Creek, where under general regulations rainbow trout frequently grow to 5lbs, feeding on zooplankton!
> 
> Again, just like mentioned previously -- it's all about growth rates. Not prey base, but growth rates. If you adjust things correctly and get fish in the zone of maximum growth rate, you'll have big fish no matter the prey base!


And Scofield routinely kicked out 5lb Rainbows in the past. Even while it _*WAS*_ the second most popular flat water fishery in the state. I wonder what position it holds now, and what position it will hold in 5 years.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## wyoming2utah

PBH said:


> Further, look at places like Otter Creek, where under general regulations rainbow trout frequently grow to 5lbs, feeding on zooplankton!
> 
> Again, just like mentioned previously -- it's all about growth rates. Not prey base, but growth rates. If you adjust things correctly and get fish in the zone of maximum growth rate, you'll have big fish no matter the prey base!


I would tell people to look at the big fish being yanked consistently out of Panguitch as a great example. Some people contend that the only way Scofield could continue to pump out monster tiger trout is with the chubs...yet, Panguitch has consistently been putting out some monsters (over 10 pounds) without them. And, now even small lakes on the Boulder--lakes without chubs, minnows, or suckers--are putting out monster (over 10 pounds!) tiger trout as well.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Vanilla said:


> PBH- I have a question and need you to help me understand this one. Why will it take 5 years for the muskies to be catchable under this plan, but if they treated it and planted them we'd be catching them next summer? That might be an easy answer that I'm just missing, but I don't get it. Help a brother out!
> 
> I will readily admit I am not a fish biologist. I won't pretend to act like I know what the result is. But I do know Scofield sucks even compared to 5-7 years ago. So much so that I completely stopped fishing it. The prospect of catching muskies and wipers out of there on my fly rod has me excited to head back in a few years.
> 
> *EDIT- And PS, big fish eat small bugs. All the freaking time!


I think Scofield could potentially put out some big wipers and big musky in a relatively short time (though the prospect of the wipers flourishing like in Minersville or Newcastle is still questionable). You definitely could get some musky that quickly begin consuming on small chubs and grow quickly...BUT, you will also most certainly lose some to competition and predation as well. Also, I would say that this new plan is certainly experimental. In the long run, it may prove to work. What I don't understand is why we simply don't go back to what we know works--poisoning and starting over. We know that if we can get ahead of the chubs with the predators that we can maintain a better balance. Panguitch, Minersville, Strawberry etc. are all great examples of this. So, why are we reinventing the wheel?


----------



## Vanilla

PBH- I get the bucket analogy. I just figured in my admittedly ignorant understanding of things that bringing in this kind of fish would change the dynamics on the growth rates and carrying capacity. But maybe my assumption was off. Your explanation certainly makes sense, though. 

W2U, is seems the reason they are doing this rather than treating and starting over is because this is what the people questioned in surveys and committees asked for. I'm hopeful this plan will work. If it doesn't, at least the DWR can fall back on the "We tried, and we did what you wanted" excuse. 

Either way, it sounds like you guys need to show me around Panguitch. Maybe we'll run into Minivan?


----------



## wyoming2utah

Vanilla said:


> PBH- I get the bucket analogy. I just figured in my admittedly ignorant understanding of things that bringing in this kind of fish would change the dynamics on the growth rates and carrying capacity. But maybe my assumption was off. Your explanation certainly makes sense, though.
> 
> W2U, is seems the reason they are doing this rather than treating and starting over is because this is what the people questioned in surveys and committees asked for. I'm hopeful this plan will work. If it doesn't, at least the DWR can fall back on the "We tried, and we did what you wanted" excuse.
> 
> Either way, it sounds like you guys need to show me around Panguitch. Maybe we'll run into Minivan?


Yeah, I agree. The whole reason they are not poisoning is because of the survey and what the action committee decided. I just think they have made the fix harder than what it needed to be.

I ran into two muzzleloader hunts ago on the Boulder. He was doing some fishing while I was hunting. For the most part, though, I don't think he fishes many of the same waters I do. I think he would be irritated with Panguitch because the rainbows lost their slot protection and cutts and tigers are the "big" fish. But, who knows. He doesn't seem to be as vocal as he used to be...


----------



## bullsnot

I'll have to go back through my notes and confirm this but if I remember correctly one of the challenges that they faced was they could not do rotenone right away. They would've been forced to do an environmental impact study for a long portion of the river system that Scofield drains into. Rules are different now days than they were in 1991. 

This was a big factor in the committees recommendations.

In fact I think this process has already begun in some fashion just in case the current plan does not work as hoped.


----------



## bullsnot

Go to the below link and start on page 60. This is the Scofield management plan and has lots of good information including background and more specifics regarding the points of the plan.

https://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/rac/2017-07_rac_packet.pdf


----------



## johnnycake

When I read the update on the DWR Facebook for the 4"muskies that they planted, it sure made me wonder what the slow growth arguers here were talking about. A few months and they went from 4" to 19"?! That is pretty quick in my book, plenty big enough to be chomping even some Dino chubs

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1980897308587938&id=136959382981749


----------



## Vanilla

Holy crap! I figured it would take 1.5-2 years to get that big. I'm not sure if this is amazing or I am just uneducated, but either way, I'm happy!

Edit: Okay, so I posted before seeing the actual FB post. The fish pictured is nowhere near 19 inches long. Not even the best fish story makes that fish 19 inches. Now I'm sad.


----------



## johnnycake

Vanilla said:


> Holy crap! I figured it would take 1.5-2 years to get that big. I'm not sure if this is amazing or I am just uneducated, but either way, I'm happy!
> 
> Edit: Okay, so I posted before seeing the actual FB post. The fish pictured is nowhere near 19 inches long. Not even the best fish story makes that fish 19 inches. Now I'm sad.


I agree that the one in the pic is not a 19" fish, but it is at least 15" if you assume her hands are 3" wide. I'm curious if they would say what size range they found in the muskies (like, "of 25 muskies netted 14 were under 6-12", 5 12-15", and 6 were 15-19").

Even at only 12", going from 4" to 12" is incredibly fast for a few months. And based on hammer handle pike I've caught, even a 10" pike will hit 8" lures, and I've pulled 12" pike out of the mouths of 18" pike--tails sticking out of the mouth and heads mostly digested and the 18" still wanted to smack my 4" rapala!


----------



## DallanC

I found this:



> Tiger muskie facts
> What are they: Tiger muskellunge are a sterile hybrid of northern pike and muskellunge.
> 
> About the fish: Tiger muskies grow rapidly, attaining a length of 20 inches in their first year and 30 inches in their second year. They are ambush predators, feeding primarily on baitfish.


So maybe 19" by next year is what they meant.

-DallanC


----------



## Vanilla

Yes johnny-c, I agree that fish pictures is 14-15. And yes, they could be netting other fish that are truly 19 inches, especially based upon what Dallan posted. If they get 20 inches "in their first year," well...we're in their first year. 

I've caught multiple ~19 inch muskies on the fly up at Pineview. They are fun. I thought they were bass until they got close enough to see them. Muskies pushing 30 inches by next time this year in Schofield? Ummmmm, okay!


----------



## PBH

more interesting than size would be how many. How many musky did they capture in total?


There is no doubt that a few will get big. And probably do it fast. The real question is: how many? 

the facebook post reminds me of many Yuba posts. They feed the public the info we want to hear, but leave the important stuff out. 

I certainly hope this works.


----------



## wyoming2utah

The thing about tiger musky is that they will not control the prey population...they ma grow fast and large but you will still have loads of chubs. If Schofield is going to be anything but a tiger musky fishery in the future something will have to control chub numbers. Wipers are the only real hope. To get fishermen in any real numbers back at Schofield it must become more than a tiger musky fishery. If wipers fail, then we are losing time and money by not poisoning because of lost fishing hours. Even with fast tiger musk growth, the tiger musky fishery is still at least a couple years out from being truly viable. How many fisherman are going to flock there to have a chance at 15-19 inch musky now or 25-30 inches next year? I wouldn't and I love catching them...I'd rather hit Newton, Pineview, Joes Valley or Johnson among others.


----------



## stevefan

The 4 inch Muskies planted last summer are now 19". WOW


----------



## Fishrmn

stevefan said:


> The 4 inch Muskies planted last summer are now 19". WOW


That's at Jordanelle. JORDANELLE RES	WASATCH	MUSKIE TIGER	8512	4.55	05/05/2016. 17 months ago.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## johnnycake

The link and the report from DWR is from Scofield not Jordanelle.


----------



## Fishrmn

http://www.bigfishtackle.com/cgi-bin/gforum/gforum.cgi?post=1024185;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;page=unread#unread

I believe these are the fish they're talking about. Not the ones that have been in Scofield for 5 months.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## johnnycake

Two different things bud. Look at the link to the Facebook page I put on the last page. Definitely Scofield.


----------



## swbuckmaster

They also planted hundreds of 20" plus rainbows to keep the power bait complainers at bay a few days ago. 

Nothing will keep chubs at bay but what a great fishery to actually have a prey base. 

I know where I'll be this ice season!

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Fishrmn

swbuckmaster said:


> They also planted hundreds of 20" plus rainbows to keep the power bait complainers at bay a few days ago.


-O,--O,--O,--O,--O,--O,-

Boy, won't that be fun.

There's not a worse thing that they could do. Nasty old fish that have spent 3 years in concrete raceways.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## LOAH

"Hey look! This one has fins. IT'S A NATIVE!!!"


----------



## Fishrmn

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## swbuckmaster

Debbie downers I bet you guys are fun to be around. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Fishrmn

2,200 15 inch bows. And about 600 of the fugly brood stock. Big whoop. That ought to make fishing fast and furious. 4,500 Wipers that are about what the White Bass are at Utah Lake. Big whoop. Ice fishing ought to be fabulous.
-O,--O,--O,--O,--O,--O,-

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## swbuckmaster

Always glass half full 

You forgot about the behemoth
tiger trout that are in that lake. Last year I caught several 9 to 13 inch cuts through the ice and let them go which should be even larger this year. I'm excited for a mix bag this year and even more excited for the future of the lake. I can catch a rainbow at almost every mid elevation reservoir in utah. There not even a challenge. 

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## dubob

swbuckmaster said:


> I can catch a rainbow at almost every mid elevation reservoir in utah. There not even a challenge.


Amen to that! :O||:


----------



## Fishrmn

swbuckmaster said:


> Always glass half full
> 
> You forgot about the behemoth
> tiger trout that are in that lake. Last year I caught several 9 to 13 inch cuts through the ice and let them go which should be even larger this year.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


Used to be in the lake. They've disappeared. And those cutthroat that you released probably starved to death. I caught a few as well, and they were as skinny as shoelaces. They haven't been doing well for the last several years. They can't get enough to eat in order to make the switch to a piscivorous diet.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------



## johnnycake

Fishrmn, you ever actually open the link that I posted showing the muskie from Scofield and dwr reporting that some were already near 19" after only a few months?


----------



## swbuckmaster

Maybe he hasn't caught a 4 inch trout on a 4 inch rapala. Fish will transition to other fish sooner then he thinks. Those cutts last winter would take advantage of the over abundant chubs of the year for several months this year and push them to the size where they can eat a bigger chubs next year. Rainbows will never work because they compete directly with chubs for food. The rest of the fish planted will thrive in this environment!


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk


----------



## Fishrmn

johnnycake said:


> Fishrmn, you ever actually open the link that I posted showing the muskie from Scofield and dwr reporting that some were already near 19" after only a few months?


Yep. I've always said that the Tiger Muskies would do well at Scofield. The DWR just kept saying that they couldn't, and therefore wouldn't put them in there. Go figure. They'll be another sport fish though. Unless they plant 100,000 or so of them. They've never made a huge impact on their forage species when the DWR puts in a few thousand. They'll grow fast. Wipers on the other hand will be nearly dormant for 6 months a year. Anybody fishing Willard Bay expect the Wipers to be active when it's cold? Or do they wait until April to see them start to get going?

The spring gill net studies last year showed VERY few large Tiger Trout or Cutthroats. There had been thousands of them planted every year for several years. But the big Tigers have disappeared, and the Cutthroat have never gotten exceptionally large. I can't prove it, but I think it's the lack of fingerling Rainbow Trout in their diet. The Tigers that got to 19 or 20 pounds grew that big during the time that they were planting fingerling and sub catchable Rainbows.



> "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."


Link to story on KSL

Anybody else notice how the UDWR was planting 3 inch Rainbows when the Tiger Trout were growing huge? And then when they quit planting fingerling Rainbows that the Tigers quit growing to trophy proportions?



> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	57950	3.01	06/15/2006
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	57950	3.01	06/16/2006
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	38240	3.1	06/28/2006
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	38880	3.09	06/28/2006
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	38880	3.09	06/28/2006
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	38880	3.09	06/28/2006
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	38880	3.09	06/28/2006
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	21384	3.09	06/29/2006
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	14340	3.1	06/29/2006
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	34992	3.09	06/29/2006
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	37908	3.09	06/29/2006
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	38880	3.09	06/29/2006
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	6300	5.32	10/24/2006
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	18900	5.32	10/24/2006
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	21600	5.32	10/24/2006
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	20475	5.98	10/24/2006
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	8400	5.93	10/24/2006
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	33600	5.93	10/24/2006
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	31005	5.98	10/24/2006
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	12000	5.93	10/24/2006
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	29400	5.93	10/24/2006
> 
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	49691	2.92	05/18/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	43648	2.92	05/21/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	47005	2.92	05/29/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	47005	2.92	05/29/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	42976	2.92	05/29/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	47005	2.92	05/29/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	49020	2.92	05/30/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	47005	2.92	05/30/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	47005	2.92	05/30/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	47005	2.92	05/30/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	8645	5.97	10/17/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	8645	5.97	10/17/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	8379	5.97	10/17/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	8379	5.97	10/17/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	5719	5.97	10/17/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	7980	5.97	10/17/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	7980	5.97	10/17/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	7980	5.97	10/17/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	8645	5.97	10/17/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	8379	5.97	10/17/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	8379	5.97	10/17/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	8379	5.97	10/17/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	8512	5.97	10/17/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	7980	5.97	10/17/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	7980	5.97	10/17/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	7980	5.97	10/17/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	4800	5.29	10/18/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	8480	5.29	10/18/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	9600	5.29	10/18/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	9600	5.29	10/18/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	9600	5.29	10/18/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	8480	5.29	10/18/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	10080	5.29	10/18/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	10080	5.29	10/18/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	10080	5.29	10/18/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	10080	5.29	10/18/2007
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	10080	5.29	10/18/2007
> 
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	8640	6.1	10/27/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	7860	5.92	10/27/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	9300	6.1	10/27/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	7860	5.92	10/27/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	8400	6.1	10/27/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	8400	6.1	10/27/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	8400	6.1	10/27/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	7920	6.1	10/27/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	8640	6.1	10/27/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	7800	6.1	10/27/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	7800	6.1	10/27/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	8515	5.92	10/27/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	7860	5.92	10/27/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	7860	5.92	10/27/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	7860	5.92	10/27/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	7860	5.92	10/27/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	8400	6.1	10/28/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	6240	6.01	10/28/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	4080	7.84	11/05/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	4080	7.84	11/05/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	4080	7.84	11/05/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	4080	7.84	11/05/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	4080	7.84	11/05/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	2400	7.84	11/06/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	1440	7.84	11/06/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	4080	7.84	11/06/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	4080	7.84	11/06/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	4080	7.84	11/06/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	6525	6.16	11/12/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	6300	6.2	11/12/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	6300	6.2	11/12/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	6300	6.2	11/12/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	6525	6.16	11/12/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	6300	6.16	11/12/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	6300	6.16	11/12/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	6300	6.16	11/12/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	6300	6.16	11/12/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	6525	6.16	11/12/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	10500	5.81	11/13/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	4046	6.23	11/13/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	10500	5.81	11/13/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	6090	6.23	11/13/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	6090	6.23	11/13/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	6090	6.23	11/13/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	6525	6.23	11/13/2008
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	6308	6.23	11/13/2008
> 
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	13950	7.74	04/23/2012
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	13206	7.74	04/23/2012
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	12180	7.95	04/24/2012
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	7946	7.95	04/24/2012
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	12900	7.86	04/24/2012
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	8400	7.86	04/25/2012
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	12570	7.86	04/25/2012
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	13195	7.42	10/29/2012
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	17400	7.42	10/29/2012
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	17400	7.42	10/29/2012
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	14244	7.3	10/29/2012
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	16650	7.32	10/30/2012
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	22200	7.32	10/30/2012
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	14213	7.3	10/30/2012
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	13725	7.3	10/30/2012
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	3330	7.32	10/30/2012
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	1525	7.3	10/30/2012
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	18675	7.04	10/31/2012
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	4565	7.04	10/31/2012
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	16650	7.32	10/31/2012
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	17596	7.04	11/05/2012
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	17015	7.04	11/06/2012
> 
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	37654	7.86	05/06/2013
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	41339	7.86	05/07/2013
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	2848	7.86	05/07/2013
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	63210	5.95	10/22/2013
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	31863	5.95	10/22/2013
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	25200	6.41	10/22/2013
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	52110	6.41	10/22/2013
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	18900	6.41	10/23/2013
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	323	5.95	10/23/2013
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	RAINBOW	12150	6.41	10/23/2013
> 
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	13211	8.69	05/12/2014
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	34083	7.66	05/13/2014
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	13080	8.69	05/13/2014
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	13080	8.69	05/13/2014
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	37343	7.68	05/14/2014
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	13298	8.69	05/14/2014
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	6584	8.69	05/14/2014
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	13647	8.69	05/14/2014
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	22318	6.92	10/14/2014
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	11060	6.92	10/15/2014
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	16590	6.92	10/15/2014
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	16590	6.92	10/16/2014
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	16590	6.92	10/28/2014
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	16590	6.92	10/29/2014
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	16590	6.92	10/30/2014
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	12640	6.92	10/30/2014
> 
> 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
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	16997	7.75	05/21/2015
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	16997	7.75	05/21/2015
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	16680	7.8	05/22/2015
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	16680	7.8	05/22/2015
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	17273	7.72	05/25/2015
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	17273	7.72	05/25/2015
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	15509	7.99	06/01/2015
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	15509	7.99	06/01/2015
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	16722	7.79	06/02/2015
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	16722	7.79	06/02/2015
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	15889	7.93	06/06/2015
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	15889	7.93	06/06/2015
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	14706	7.91	06/08/2015
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	14706	7.91	06/08/2015
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	11664	7.73	06/09/2015
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	11664	7.73	06/09/2015
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	32560	6.23	10/06/2015
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	15400	6.23	10/06/2015
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	33000	6.23	10/06/2015
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	32450	6.23	10/07/2015
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	17050	6.23	10/14/2015
> 
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	12050	8.17	05/03/2016
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	11703	8.05	05/13/2016
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	14437	8.18	05/16/2016
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	14021	8.26	05/17/2016
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	13926	8.28	05/18/2016
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	13832	8.3	05/19/2016
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	13807	8.33	05/23/2016
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	14827	8.11	05/24/2016
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	15039	8.07	05/25/2016
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	14153	8.24	05/27/2016
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	13931	8.28	06/06/2016
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	CUTTHROAT	8546	8.22	06/07/2016
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	15000	7.07	10/13/2016
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	4500	7.07	10/17/2016
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	18750	7.07	10/17/2016
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	18000	7.07	10/17/2016
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	4500	7.07	10/17/2016
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	18000	7.07	10/18/2016
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	18000	7.07	10/18/2016
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	18000	7.07	10/21/2016
> SCOFIELD RES	CARBON	TIGER TROUT	6000	7.07	10/21/2016


If the Cutthroats that swbuckmaster caught last winter were going to grow big because he released them, and there were tons of chubs to feed on, why didn't all of the Cutthroats from the last 8 or ten years do the same thing? Because the Cutthroats from the last 8 or ten years have struggled, and the ones from this year will do the same thing until the number of chubs is significantly reduced. Rotenone would've done it in less than a year. We're 17 years into this infestation of chubs.

⫸<{{{{{⦇°>


----------

