# plant tigers in the berry



## duckdog1us (Mar 4, 2012)

http://www.change.org/petitions/utah-di ... VLNOpe=pce


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Why mess with a good thing? Strawberry treats me quite well, and I will admit the novelty of "frankenfish" is long gone. While I suppose they would do no long term harm, unless they ate the kokes, I am content with catching the goodly numbers of big cutts and bows up there already.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Absolutely NOT! Tigers suck... leave the berry as it is, its a fantastic fishery that needs NO help from another species.


-DallanC


----------



## jer (Jan 16, 2012)

I love catching tigers, but my thinking is why fix something that isn't broke. There are places to catch tigers near strawberry already...the thought of catching big tigers at the berry is alluring, but I am not schooled enough to know what tigers would do to the fishery. Thus I would keep it as it is now.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

+1 to Dallan and Jer!


----------



## ScottyP (Sep 12, 2007)

There is no good reason to put tigers in strawberry. I don't hate tiger trout per say, but why do some people feel the need to want to have them in every lake in the state?


----------



## tye dye twins (Mar 8, 2011)

Lets get the tigers in there. Signed buddy!


----------



## a_bow_nut (Feb 25, 2009)

Maybe you will get lucky and have some wash in from Current Creek.


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

I signed it. I agree that the lake doesn't need to be fixed at this time, but another possible catch that fights like crazy is something I would look forward to.

Strawberry is an amazing lake and the cutts are doing a fine job, it seems. My reasoning for signing isn't largely due to chub control (which, I think tigers would probably out-do the cutts in that arena), but to add another dimension of fishing to an already wonderful fishery. Gill nets have already turned in evidence that the cutts are keeping most of the small chub numbers down.

Think about the excitement when you're fighting something that feels big but you can't see it yet. What could it be? We know it's probably not a cutt if it's fighting, so is it a rainbow or a tiger? I love that feeling and think the tigers would do little harm and possibly a lot of good.

No, I don't think tigers should be everywhere, but this is Strawberry. It's world-class and it's not like the BL Cutts are supposed to be in there anyway (non-native to the drainage), so there's no danger of decimating a native population.

I say bring on the Frankenfish and add another possible catch to the short list at the Berry. I also understand if people fight it, tooth and nail, cursing the test tube babies that are being proposed.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

LOAH said:


> I signed it. I agree that the lake doesn't need to be fixed at this time, but another possible catch that fights like crazy is something I would look forward to.
> 
> Strawberry is an amazing lake and the cutts are doing a fine job, it seems. My reasoning for signing isn't largely due to chub control (which, I think tigers would probably out-do the cutts in that arena), but to add another dimension of fishing to an already wonderful fishery. Gill nets have already turned in evidence that the cutts are keeping most of the small chub numbers down.
> 
> ...


Well reasoned, I think.

My concern would be the tiger's appetite for the YOY cutts.

Another thing with Strawberry is that it is the major line in the sand between the BL cutt being listed as an endangered species and being a fishable species. Even though stocking is the main support to the population in Strawberry, it still keeps the numbers high enough to keep the BL cutt off the endangered species list.

Many complained that cutts were being put in too many places (see the poisonings on the Boulders). But, it was precisely that effort that is keeping the cutts off the endangered species list. Strawberry is less important as a barrier between us and the endangered species list but is still a very vital component because of its size and its population.

In my opinion, even a low probability that tigers could prey on the YOY cutts is reason enough to keep them out of Strawberry.


----------



## billybob (Oct 27, 2008)

I do not fish the Berry very often, maybe once a year. However, I am opposed to placing tigers in there. I love the idea of having a great variety of fish in our lakes, but that damned tiger is turning up every where I go in this state these days. So, I go to the Berry to catch something besides a tiger, and I kind of like it that way. Besides, so much of my fishing license money has gone into supporting the BL Cutts in Strawberry, I don't see much sense in adding another, highly competitive species in there. In fact, its getting to the point where I would like to see some more Cutts planted in other lakes around the state, and start thinning out the number of tigers that are planted. They were cool at first, but I am getting sick of trying new lakes to see what's there just to catch another handful of tigers.


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

Dodger said:


> Another thing with Strawberry is that it is the major line in the sand between the BL cutt being listed as an endangered species and being a fishable species.


I'm not sure how the Berry's population of BL Cutts would influence their status, since they're in a totally different drainage than the one of concern. I might be wrong, but I thought that's what the EPA folks were all about; original drainages.

The cutts in the Berry were placed there to do a job. They're doing a pretty good job too, which is why they've been stocked in other waters that they don't really belong in.

One thing I've noticed about the cutts is that it's pretty rare to catch one without the little orange tattoo from the hatchery. Perhaps that means the tigers would have a negative impact on the cutts, or perhaps it means that it doesn't really matter since they're mostly coming from the hatchery anyway.

I'll leave that to the biologists to decide, but I don't personally think they'll do anything but add another species to catch.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

The cutts were placed in Strawberry to provide a back up population in case the population in Bear Lake crashed. It also means that you can fish at Bear Lake. There was actually talk of closing Bear Lake to angling in order to protect the endemic Bear Lake Cutthroat. The hassle over producing sterile rainbows was to protect the genetic purity of the cutts in Strawberry so they could be used to provide fish to plant back in Bear Lake.

There is no real need for Tigers at Strawberry. In fact, they could prove to be a problem. If too many predators knock the chubs down to the point that the cutthroats don't have enough to eat, they will prey more heavily on the fingerling that make it to the reservoir from the tributaries. Tigers may cause more mortality of the fingerlings as well.


----------



## duckdog1us (Mar 4, 2012)

We are actually working on a survey to decide some of the future management directions for Strawberry. And though a petition may help bolster some support for such a cause, unfortunately petitions do not get much of the needed information out to the public. I think we have discussed this with you in the past, we have a few concerns with what you are suggesting that I will reiterate. 

First of all, we have limited production in our hatcheries, and with shrinking budgets and recent state audits, production will become more limited. Therefore we cannot increase production to add a species to our current stocking quotas. 

Also, the cutthroat have proven to do a great job at keeping chubs under control, we cannot switch that program to another species at this point. Tigers have not proven that they can do the same job on chubs. The tigers in Scofield have not yet shown that they can do the same job. In addition, the tigers are not as easily caught by anglers. One of our many goals at Strawberry is to provide a fishery where people can expect high catch rates, and our experience at other reservoirs is that tigers do not provide this. Yes, many anglers do figure out how to catch them, but the average angler does not catch many. We also get a considerable amount of natural reproduction from the cutthroat (35% of our cutthroat population on average), and we would get none from the tigers. Basically we would have fewer fish in the reservoir as a result of switching cutthroat for tigers, again making chub control more difficult with tigers. We closely monitor the fish in Strawberry every year, and our cutthroat are looking great as far as condition, fat levels, and growth. Cutthroat often look skinny compared to some other fish, but that is how they naturally grow until they get to larger sizes when they put on more girth. Increasing in length faster than they put on girth is their strategy to become a more effective predator, and it works. However, you may have noticed that cutthroat numbers have declined somewhat in the last couple of years, and is due to a couple of year classes of stocked fish not surviving well. These stocked fish came in undersized, and many were eaten. Cutthroat numbers should be on the rebound over the next couple of years, and we need them for chub control. 

One possibility would be to switch rainbow production for tigers. However, based on angler opinion surveys we regularly do at Strawberry, I do not think this would be a popular option. Most anglers want more rainbows, not fewer, or none if we made the switch. If angler opinion did show that they wanted tigers instead of rainbows, we could consider that option. However, in any king of survey or petition it would be necessary that the anglers were aware that they would be giving up rainbows to get the tigers. 

As far as kokanee, there is not much to bargain with there. We only raise a few thousand pounds of kokanee (compared to 100,000 lbs of cutthroat and rainbows), and that would not be enough to stock the numbers of tigers we would need to show up in the creel. 

Again, a petition would help gain some interest and support for such a change, but we have to look at the broader picture as well. We could not make any such changes unless there was considerable evidence that the switch would work for us biologically (chub control, and other such factors), would provide the desired fishery (high catch rates), is cost effective from a production standpoint, and is what the majority of the angling public wants (would need to be determined from a broader scale angler survey). 

I hope this helps clarify our current position on this. And by no means am I anti-tigers (or anti- most fish species for that matter). They all have their place. Thanks for letting me comment. 


Alan Ward 
Strawberry Project Leader 
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Thanks for posting Mr. Wards response. Good info!


----------



## xxxxxxBirdDogger (Mar 7, 2008)

We love rainbows!

We love rainbows!

We love rainbows!

Respectfully signed,
The BirdDogger Family


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

LOAH said:


> Dodger said:
> 
> 
> > Another thing with Strawberry is that it is the major line in the sand between the BL cutt being listed as an endangered species and being a fishable species.
> ...


Actually, LOAH, the ESA is a lot more sinister than you give it credit for. You are partly right, in some cases it is about original drainages. But, surprisingly enough, that's a political position rather than a legal position.

The ESA is all about what percentage of the native range is suitable for a particular species. The question is, how far back do you go to determine the native range. What is an "original drainage?"

The Bush administration said that the percentage of native range that is suitable is calculated by taking the current range of a species and dividing it by the BIGGEST native range for that species - a fairly simple approach. So, if the green troutfish has a native range of 10 miles of stream on one side of the continental divide and currently lives in 10 miles of that stream, it exists in 100% of its native range. Let's say these fish are plentiful to the point that they are stunting.

The Obama administration takes a different track. They calculate native range by taking the current range and dividing it against EACH area known to support the species in its native range. So, if the green troutfish has a native range of 10 miles of stream on side A of the continental divide and 10 miles of stream on side B of the continental divide, you have to look at what percentage of each stream the green troutfish lives in. On side A, you have 100% of the native range on side A with stunted tiny little green troutfish. On side B, say you only have fish in .5 miles of the 10 miles of native stream. That means the green troutfish only occupies 5% of it's native range on side B. Under the ESA, that fish is endangered and the Feds can step in and take away state control of sides A and B.

With the BL cutt, I believe they had to increase the population of the fish throughout its native range to meet the stricter interpretation of the ESA (The Obama administration isn't the first administration to read the law this way). But, if you qualify under the stricter interpretation, you qualify under the broader interpretation.

That's also why the "original drainage" is enough to keep a species off the list. If they are only known in that small area and have only inhabited that small area through history, the denominator on the equation stays small and keeps the percentage high.

It's left to your politics for how to interpret what the ESA is supposed to do. I personally disfavor both methods because I think both are an overly rigid application of the law. The law itself gets in the way of what is best for each particular species. But, then the ESA was never intended solely to protect animals.

This same interpretation is how our pals at the Center for Biological Diversity keep bringing lawsuits charging that the Colorado Cutt and other fish are endangered. They used to thrive in Lake X but now there are only 2 of them in Lake X. They are endangered in Lake X. Courts don't always place a moratorium on fishing for all Colorado Cutts (as in my example above with the green troutfish). But they can. The question is what happens if they do.

The only way to raise the percentages, under both interpretations, is to increase both the populations and current range of species that are on the verge of being "endangered" based on the current range/native range calculation. That's essentially what Utah has done at Strawberry, I believe. Once they go in Strawberry, you have a huge drainage system that now has a population of Cutts. You upped the current range for the species by putting them in one big lake and kept the Feds out of your sandbox. It is a win/win.

I'm not an Endangered Species Act lawyer so I may not have 100% explained the law correctly. But, it is a reasonably accurate explanation of how it works.

Oh yeah, and where do you see that tatoo?


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

Nice, thanks. 

The dye dot is usually along the belly of the fish somewhere, but I've seen them on the side and sometimes faces too.

Injected with dye for future data collection, I believe.


----------



## brookieguy1 (Oct 14, 2008)

billybob said:


> I do not fish the Berry very often, maybe once a year. However, I am opposed to placing tigers in there. I love the idea of having a great variety of fish in our lakes, but that damned tiger is turning up every where I go in this state these days. So, I go to the Berry to catch something besides a tiger, and I kind of like it that way. Besides, so much of my fishing license money has gone into supporting the BL Cutts in Strawberry, I don't see much sense in adding another, highly competitive species in there. In fact, its getting to the point where I would like to see some more Cutts planted in other lakes around the state, and start thinning out the number of tigers that are planted. They were cool at first, but I am getting sick of trying new lakes to see what's there just to catch another handful of tigers.


+1 tigers have lost their novelty to me. I really couldn't care less about Strawberry, other than it keeps people gathered up there. I would much rather catch a brook, 'bow, brown or even ....ahem...a cutt! They are a step above albinos though.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

Thank you for the info Alan, two quick questions from a KOKE ADDICT: what percentage of kokanee replenishment is from natural spawning vs the hatchery raised fry?

Are kokanee more or less expensive to farm than other species like rainbows?

I love kokanee, I'd rather catch them than any other species in Utah at this point... and after years of learning we're getting pretty good at it 


-DallanC


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

I am neither for or against. The least of my concern would be the impact of tigers on the cutts. If cutt mortality is such a concern, then regs mandating single hook, barbless, or AFL would be put in place, or zero harvest of cutts. Because the fish being affected by angling are the fish that are at the age to be preying on the chubs, not the fingerlings. Sure, tigers could slightly affect generational populations, but if only 35% of cutts are naturally born, the impact wouldn't be that great. IMO, tigers are better predatory fish than the cutts, just compare the growth rates of both species in Scofield.

Unless the chubs start to make a strong comeback at the berry, I don't really see a reason for putting tigers in there. If the chub rebound happens, maybe stock tigers in the place of rainbows for a few years until the chub population is under control. Until that happens, continue putting lots of bows in there cause I would rather catch big bows over cutts or tigers any day.


----------

