# Killing fish!



## cklspencer

What the HE11!!! :evil:

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=10373306

Why does it always have to be about the D&^$ F(*$ cutts. I hate cutts. They don't fight as hard and they taste like SH**. I would much rather catch a brook trout and eat that then a dang cutt. We have enough cutts in other lakes and rivers why ruin something else. :evil: 
I would hope that if they are really going to do this before they kill all the fish they try and relocate as many as possible to other places that could use them.


----------



## Packfish

Really don't think they could relocate many fish out of Boulder Creek- just a personal opinion is all- just think that there would be a pretty large monetary investment to do that. Also think there's nothing wrong with it.


----------



## Dodger

cklspencer said:


> What the HE11!!! :evil:
> 
> http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=10373306
> 
> Why does it always have to be about the D&^$ F(*$ cutts. I hate cutts. They don't fight as hard and they taste like SH**. I would much rather catch a brook trout and eat that then a dang cutt. We have enough cutts in other lakes and rivers why ruin something else. :evil:
> I would hope that if they are really going to do this before they kill all the fish they try and relocate as many as possible to other places that could use them.


Utah is doing this on purpose. You want to know why its all about cutts? Because if Utah doesn't do something to increase the amount of cutts, they are going to get listed on the Endangered Species list. Then you can kiss all of your fishing good-bye.

There are plenty of places to catch brookies. They aren't going to relocate them either. They are going to rotenone them and pick them up and take them out for dinner. They'll probably up the limit to 8 (or get rid of it) on that part of the creek prior to poisoning it.

Utah has more species of cutts than any other state. That's just doing business here. If you don't like cutts, then you don't like fishing in Utah.


----------



## cklspencer

Utah has more species of cutts than any other state. That's just doing business here. If you don't like cutts, then you don't like fishing in Utah.[/quote]


> Utah is doing this on purpose. You want to know why its all about cutts? Because if Utah doesn't do something to increase the amount of cutts, they are going to get listed on the Endangered Species list.


Endagered? Which Species?



> Utah has more species of cutts than any other state. That's just doing business here. If you don't like cutts, then you don't like fishing in Utah.[/


Far from it. I like fishing in Utah. I just Hate cutts. However they do have their place, They just don't need to be in everybody of water in Utah. Just MHO.


----------



## Packfish

He didn't say they were on the endangered species list he said they could be- which is a true statement.

If the state shows that they can deal with this on thier own terms and get the job done then they probably won't be listed. If the state doesn't do it and it does get listed then the Feds will tell the state how to deal with it. And having the natural resident species where they always were probably is the right thing to do.
There are places for Brook trout, Rainbows, browns etc etc- and I think the state does a decent job at that balancing act.


----------



## cklspencer

> He didn't say they were on the endangered species list he said they could be- which is a true statement.
> 
> If the state shows that they can deal with this on thier own terms and get the job done then they probably won't be listed. If the state doesn't do it and it does get listed then the Feds will tell the state how to deal with it. And having the natural resident species where they always were probably is the right thing to do.
> There are places for Brook trout, Rainbows, browns etc etc- and I think the state does a decent job at that balancing act.


I agree that they do a great job, But to just get ride of the other speices of trout in the waters I feel is wrong.


----------



## Packfish

What would be your solution then ?


----------



## orvis1

Cmon cuts fight great... They just save all their fighting for the net... LOL! :mrgreen: On the bright side they usually put tiger trout in with the cuts and being the tiger ***** I am the more tiger lakes the better! I just hate to see the brookies go, I am becoming fond of them lately..


----------



## wyoming2utah

Some people are really ignorant and don't have a clue what they are talking about... :roll: 

I have fished Boulder Creek ever since I was big enough for my Dad to haul me in to the headwaters. We specifically skipped the lower reaches of the stream to get to the headwaters despite the long hike because of the CR cutts that inhabited the top end. The cutts that live in the headwaters are not only 99% pure, but indigenous and native. They were there before the native amercians before the first white settlers and long before the stunted brook trout. The best thing about these fish, though, is that they are much more colorful than any trout I have ever seen.

Removing the stunted brook trout from the lower stretches is not only a good thing but a great thing! The funny thing about people complaining about removing the stunted brookies is that these are the same people who probably have never even fished Boulder Creek or spent the time to hike into it (it is even more obvious when people say that these fish should be relocated...it really shows who has and has not been into this stream!)

Personally, I love the fact that the DWR and the Forest Service are going to eliminate all the stunted brookies in Boulder Creek because they are not only worse fighting fish than the cutts that will replace them, but they are so skinny that you can't even eat them. Not only that, but now instead of having to hike all the way into the headwaters to fish for decent healthy fish, I can fish the lower stretches that are only inhabited by skinny big-headed brookies.


----------



## PBH

nailed it W2U!


This is a good thing. Brook trout are a bad mix in Boulder Creek. They rarely grow over 6". Cutts have an opportunity to grow larger, as long as the overpopulated brook trout are removed.

This is a good project that should have been done years ago -- but better late than never!



The alternative is to not do the project, and let some group like the Nature Conservancy group sue to list cutts under the Endangered Species Act. Everyone complaining now would truly have reason to complain if that happened.

good job DWR and FS -- get it done!


----------



## Chaser

clkspencer- First off, have you fished the Boulders before? Second, have you caught a native CR cutt? And third- are you mostly referring to Strawberry cutts when you say "they don't fight?"

Most folks who have fished Boulder mountain will be able to tell you that the Brookies have more or less eaten themselves out of house and home down there. In the 80's and early 90's there were WAAAAAY too many brookies planted there. Subsequently, most of the lakes that hold fish without substantial winterkill or angler pressure end up plumb full of snakey-bodied fish with big fins and heads. This is the reason why the limit on Brook trout went up...eliminate competition for food, and the fish get bigger. 

The native cutts, while maybe not your favorite fish, are the ones that belong there. Like others mentioned, I'd rather have a different fish to catch than have the area closed to fishing altogether. Native fish fight like crazy. They eat different things down there than the fish at the Berry do. A lot of folks don't like the BL cutts because they think they don't really fight hard. I guess its just a preference thing, but don't think that one strain of cutt is the same as any other. There is a difference, and I can attest to this.

Personally, I have always love the Brookies on Boulder. But I will concede that this is the right thing to do. The native species belong there, not some foreign species from Canada and the Northeast. I have always dreamed of fishing for huge cutts like we hear about in pioneer stories from the 1800s, and the direction being taken by the DWR brings us a huge step in that direction.


----------



## wyoguy

Never fished Boulder creek, however, any time you can keep control of your fish and wildlife in the hands of your state people, the better off you are. Example, the wolves in Wyo.. We have to deal with the US Wildlife Service on how to manage them. You don't want to get in that kind of mess!


----------



## Dodger

cklspencer said:


> Endagered? Which Species?


Actually, in the past few years, both the Bonneville cutts and the Colorado cutts have been the topic of law suits by green nuts to get them listed under the Endangered Species Act. In other states fruit cakes have sued for Yellowstone Cutts. Greenback cutts have been sued on in Colorado. Lahonton Cutts are already on the list as well as Paiute Cutts.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=21766&st=0&sk=t&sd=a



cklspencer said:


> Far from it. I like fishing in Utah. I just Hate cutts. However they do have their place, They just don't need to be in everybody of water in Utah. Just MHO.


No one is saying that they should be in every body of water in Utah. But, the range of all cutts needs to be expanded to maintain their status as non-listed under the ESA. That means places like Boulder Creek are going to have to be turned into cutthroat streams.

What I'm telling you is that Utah means cutthroat fishing. If you hate fishing for cutts, you hate fishing in Utah. I'm sorry say so, but Utah is all about cutts and always will be.

Do you know what happens if these fish get listed? All fishing for these fish will be shut down. That means any water where these fish live will be off limits. That includes places where cutts are known to live with other species. ALL fishing will be closed in any water where any cutt is known to live.

Do you see how hating cutts is hating fishing? You get rid of cutts, you get rid of fishing.


----------



## Brookie

People are throwing in all sorts of opionons around so here is mine.
I have caught plenty of the Colorado Cuts, and have yet to see one more colorful than a brook trout, they do have unique colors though. They taste bad and they don't fight hard either. I have fished boulder creek, glad they are going to do something with our money. I do hate cutthroats that is why I don't fish for them but I still like Utah's fishing. especially the Brook Trout. Brook Trout fishing has been really good for about 6 years I hope the DWR can keep it going.


----------



## cklspencer

> What I'm telling you is that Utah means cutthroat fishing. If you hate fishing for cutts, you hate fishing in Utah.


Funny I love fishing and hate the cutts. I sure as heck don't make it a point to fish for them. If I catch one its because I am fishing for something else.



> Do you know what happens if these fish get listed? All fishing for these fish will be shut down. That means any water where these fish live will be off limits. That includes places where cutts are known to live with other species. ALL fishing will be closed in any water where any cutt is known to live.


Not true. Several other spieces of fish are listed and yet you still get to fish for the other spieces of fish in those waters.



> First off, have you fished the Boulders before? Second, have you caught a native CR cutt?


Heck yes I have fished it. I go down just about every other year. Most likely I have never caught a native CR.cutt at least on the boulders. Its possible that I have and never new it somewhere else. I go down for the brooks, same reason I go to other places for the brooks.



> I have always dreamed of fishing for huge cutts like we hear about in pioneer stories from the 1800s, and the direction being taken by the DWR brings us a huge step in that direction.


In the 1800's there were also giant cutts in Utah lake. So should they kill off all the non native fish that have been in the lake since the late 1800's and early to mid 1900's and do the same thing?

I don't care if they want to add more cutts to the boulders, I just don't think you have to kill everything else there. I know it has alot of brooks but do they have to get rid of them all?


----------



## Grandpa D

wyoming2utah said:


> Some people are really ignorant and don't have a clue what they are talking about... :roll:
> 
> I have fished Boulder Creek ever since I was big enough for my Dad to haul me in to the headwaters. We specifically skipped the lower reaches of the stream to get to the headwaters despite the long hike because of the CR cutts that inhabited the top end. The cutts that live in the headwaters are not only 99% pure, but indigenous and native. They were there before the native amercians before the first white settlers and long before the stunted brook trout. The best thing about these fish, though, is that they are much more colorful than any trout I have ever seen.
> 
> Removing the stunted brook trout from the lower stretches is not only a good thing but a great thing! The funny thing about people complaining about removing the stunted brookies is that these are the same people who probably have never even fished Boulder Creek or spent the time to hike into it (it is even more obvious when people say that these fish should be relocated...it really shows who has and has not been into this stream!)
> 
> Personally, I love the fact that the DWR and the Forest Service are going to eliminate all the stunted brookies in Boulder Creek because they are not only worse fighting fish than the cutts that will replace them, but they are so skinny that you can't even eat them. Not only that, but now instead of having to hike all the way into the headwaters to fish for decent healthy fish, I can fish the lower stretches that are only inhabited by skinny big-headed brookies.


Well put.
When the facts are known, the truth comes out


----------



## Dodger

cklspencer said:


> Funny I love fishing and hate the cutts. I sure as heck don't make it a point to fish for them. If I catch one its because I am fishing for something else.


Then you aren't understanding what I'm telling you.



> Not true. Several other spieces of fish are listed and yet you still get to fish for the other spieces of fish in those waters.


It depends on the degree of listing of the fish. If a fish is listed as "threatened," then yes, you are right. You can still fish there. If it is listed as endangered, then no. Fishing is closed.

Guess which listing these groups are after?


----------



## cklspencer

> It depends on the degree of listing of the fish. If a fish is listed as "threatened," then yes, you are right. You can still fish there. If it is listed as endangered, then no. Fishing is closed.


Still only half true. The enviorment in which it is found would also have to be endangered.


----------



## lunkerhunter2

I say get rid of the cutts and brookies. They are both pretty fish but really not worth catching. Replace them with tigers and browns and kokes, fish that actually eat well and fight more than a wet sock.


----------



## Pez Gallo

Some of you are arguing about the fighting prowess of a 6 inch brookie versus a six inch cutt?


----------



## brookieguy1

As folks can see by my site name I love brook trout. But I can also attest that the DWR is doing an outstanding job on managing Boulder Mountain. Boulder Creek is full of sickly 6" skinny brook trout. In it's headwaters lurk healthy beautiful CO cutts. I'm not a cutt fan by any means, but let's look at it in a logical manner. If they remove the stunted brook trout that are damaging the native cutts to improve the fishery and at the same time help keep the cutts off the endangered species list, we all win. If the hippies get their way, they'll sue to get the cutts on an endangered species list and shut down the whole drainage to fishing and let the feds get their noses in it. The only lakes and streams on Boulder Mountain that have been poisoned are ones that had histories of stunted brookies. All the trophy brook trout lakes have been left alone. Relax guys, Boulder Creek is being improved! I don't think any of us want to see a drainage fenced in and off-limits to sport fishing due to some green guys! Never fear, the brook trout of Boulder Mountain are here to stay. It's history as a brook trout mecca and trophy destination are much too imbedded in the culture of Utah fisherman.


----------



## wyoming2utah

cklspencer said:


> [
> Heck yes I have fished it. I go down just about every other year. Most likely I have never caught a native CR.cutt at least on the boulders. Its possible that I have and never new it somewhere else. I go down for the brooks, same reason I go to other places for the brooks.
> 
> I don't care if they want to add more cutts to the boulders, I just don't think you have to kill everything else there. I know it has alot of brooks but do they have to get rid of them all?


1) Sorry, but I really question whether you have fished Boulder Creek. Just out of curiosity, where did you access it from? Where did you fish it? Earlier in this thread, you talked about the DWR relocating brook trout from Boulder Creek...how is the DWR going to get the fish from Boulder Creek to be moved?

2) The DWR isn't planning on eliminating all of the brook trout from Boulder Mountain...not even close. Instead of spouting off about something about you obviously know very little, how about reading up on the subject: http://wildlife.utah.gov/cutthroat/BCT/ ... -et-al.pdf


----------



## Dodger

cklspencer said:


> It depends on the degree of listing of the fish. If a fish is listed as "threatened," then yes, you are right. You can still fish there. If it is listed as endangered, then no. Fishing is closed.
> 
> 
> 
> Still only half true. The enviorment in which it is found would also have to be endangered.
Click to expand...

No, that's not how the ESA works. You are talking about something different.

The Bush administration said species could only be listed under the ESA if their population was threatened in some part of their CURRENT range.

These folks are arguing that that is an incorrect application of the ESA and they want the species listed if their population is struggling ANYWHERE in its HISTORIC range.

I know what I'm talking about with the ESA. I'm not telling you half-truths. I've read the briefs, I've read the decisions. Did you read the other thread I posted?


----------



## PBH

Dodger -- are you truly against improving a fishery?


I'm not concerned about the Feds closing the stream to fishing. My concern is more with litigation, wasted money, wasted time, and wasted efforts. The UDWR is required to continue it's efforts with native cutthroat trout restoration work. Boulder Creek is a stream with a historic population of native cutthroat. These cutthroat have been living in the upper parts of Boulder Creek for thousands of years -- they were there before whiteman started keeping records and have been "untouched" by competitive species thanks to natural barriers. Below these barriers brook trout have moved in and taken over the stream. The habitat is too good -- they continue to reproduce to the point that the fish are extremely small. If you remove the brook trout and replace them with native cutthroat -- which have natural systems in place to prevent them from overpopulating -- you improve the fishery. If you don't do it, the Feds step in and take over the management of the fishery. Now, who would you rather have managing the Boulder Creek drainage on Boulder Mountain: Utah DWR? Or Federal Fish and Wildlife?

Personally, I'd rather see the local guys that have been working on that mountain for years, and years vs. a bunch of people from D.C.


But, politics aside, the project will improve the fishery. How can anyone be against that?


----------



## killdeer

Boulder Creek might be a good place for the CRC. I hate the over population and stunting of Brookies, and wish someone would or could do a better job of managing them (although in my fifty+ years of fishing the Boulder, the past ten have been good). I dream about a trophy quality Brook. They are my fish of choice.

I am not impressed the the CRC (fight, size or table fare). I do appreciate the State keeping the feds our of the mix. Most of the lakes and impounds I visit that that have Cuts in also have Tigers. The Tigers have become a good option (in the absence of Brookies) for some of our favorite, former Brook fisheries.

I hope someone doesn't loose there mind and eradicate all the Brookies on the Boulder. It is a world class Brook fishery.


----------



## Chaser

killdeer said:


> I hope someone doesn't loose there mind and eradicate all the Brookies on the Boulder. It is a world class Brook fishery.


I agree with this 100%

I don't like the idea of converting Boulder to a strictly CRC fishery, but I believe in some of the waters, its a prudent decision to make. I love catching brookies, and would be pretty bummed if someone decided to pull the plug on all of them.


----------



## Dodger

PBH said:


> Dodger -- are you truly against improving a fishery?
> 
> I'm not concerned about the Feds closing the stream to fishing. My concern is more with litigation, wasted money, wasted time, and wasted efforts. The UDWR is required to continue it's efforts with native cutthroat trout restoration work. Boulder Creek is a stream with a historic population of native cutthroat. These cutthroat have been living in the upper parts of Boulder Creek for thousands of years -- they were there before whiteman started keeping records and have been "untouched" by competitive species thanks to natural barriers. Below these barriers brook trout have moved in and taken over the stream. The habitat is too good -- they continue to reproduce to the point that the fish are extremely small. If you remove the brook trout and replace them with native cutthroat -- which have natural systems in place to prevent them from overpopulating -- you improve the fishery. If you don't do it, the Feds step in and take over the management of the fishery. Now, who would you rather have managing the Boulder Creek drainage on Boulder Mountain: Utah DWR? Or Federal Fish and Wildlife?
> 
> Personally, I'd rather see the local guys that have been working on that mountain for years, and years vs. a bunch of people from D.C.
> 
> But, politics aside, the project will improve the fishery. How can anyone be against that?


Wait, I'm confused. I am all in favor of Utah expanding the range for the CCR. I want them to put CCR in Boulder Creek for exactly the reasons you mention. I want Utah DWR to run the show and not the FFW exactly because I think it will improve the fishery.

Aside from being concerned that the Feds will close the fishery, a lack of concern for the litigation that may result (I don't think it is a waste at all if it is necessary), and the specific reason why the DWR is required to to continue the native cutt restoration work (I think the only "requirement" is good sense right now), I agree with everything you said. Are you sure you weren't referring to cklspencer?


----------



## brookieguy1

Large brook trout are and will always be a viable part of the Boulder Mountain fishery. If it somehow ever changes, it won't be from the reintroduction of CO cutts, but instead from not protecting to some extent their native range. The DWR needs to be applauded, not condemned.


----------



## Lost Coyote

Does anyone have any historic evidence that Colorado River Cuts ever live anywhere on the Boulder Mtn. above 9000 feet prior to their so called "re-introduction."

I got no problem with them in Boulder Creek, a got a big problem with them in the MAN_MADE lakes above 9000 feet where they could never have gotten, or lived historically...


----------



## Dodger

Lost Coyote said:


> Does anyone have any historic evidence that Colorado River Cuts ever live anywhere on the Boulder Mtn. above 9000 feet prior to their so called "re-introduction."
> 
> I got no problem with them in Boulder Creek, a got a big problem with them in the MAN_MADE lakes above 9000 feet where they could never have gotten, or lived historically...


That doesn't really make sense. You would rather see a lake that is naturally fishless remain fishless just because fish couldn't have gotten to the lake or lived there historically?

What about when the only reason fish could not live there happily and healthy for no other reason than they could not physically get to the lake?

Also, what you are saying doesn't jive with the Endangered Species Act. The ESA is only interested in historic RANGE, not where the fish actually lived historically.


----------



## Lost Coyote

> That doesn't really make sense. You would rather see a lake that is naturally fishless remain fishless just because fish couldn't have gotten to the lake or lived there historically?
> 
> What about when the only reason fish could not live there happily and healthy for no other reason than they could not physically get to the lake?
> 
> Also, what you are saying doesn't jive with the Endangered Species Act. The ESA is only interested in historic RANGE, not where the fish actually lived historically.


You've proved my point!

Look, I don't want to see prime habitat for trout to go fishless, I love fishing for brooke trout on the boulder mountain...we have the best Brook trout fishery in the nation, you can catch lots of fish in some lakes and you can catch abnormally large fish in others...it's the perfect situation!

Historically speaking: Lakes where made, developed, improved etc. above 9000 feet and they WERE FISHLESS the day after they were finished. Then, most of them were planted with Brook Trout. They, the brookies, lived "there happily and healthy" until the past few years when the Endangered Species Act became the bible for Boulder Mountain fishery control.

Now, we are blindly following a plan that


> doesn't really make sense


. By your admission, the fish NEVER lived on these parts of the mountain. How "HISTORIC" is this SO CALLED "RANGE" if fish never lived there historically?

I'm not sure we should bow to an act that is so clearly wrong.

It doesn't make sense.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Lost Coyote said:


> Look, I don't want to see prime habitat for trout to go fishless, I love fishing for brooke trout on the boulder mountain...we have the best Brook trout fishery in the nation, you can catch lots of fish in some lakes and you can catch abnormally large fish in others...it's the perfect situation!
> 
> Historically speaking: Lakes where made, developed, improved etc. above 9000 feet and they WERE FISHLESS the day after they were finished. Then, most of them were planted with Brook Trout. They, the brookies, lived "there happily and healthy" until the past few years when the Endangered Species Act became the bible for Boulder Mountain fishery control.
> 
> Now, we are blindly following a plan that
> 
> 
> 
> doesn't really make sense
> 
> 
> 
> . By your admission, the fish NEVER lived on these parts of the mountain. How "HISTORIC" is this SO CALLED "RANGE" if fish never lived there historically?
> 
> I'm not sure we should bow to an act that is so clearly wrong.
> 
> It doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

Again, ignorant comments from someone who has virtually no clue about what he is talking about...

The facts: 1) CR cutts are native to the Boulder Mountain and ample evidence does exist that several streams have indigenous populations of these native fish...and the headwaters of these streams are above 9000 feet. 2) Although many of the lakes on Boulder Mountain would have been fishless without stocking, many of them would not have been and would have had fish because of their feeder streams/springs. 3) We are NOT blindly following a plan...those of us who like and believe wholeheartedly in the plan know that it makes sense because we are expanding the range of a beautiful fish that is native to Utah...and, we are doing so at the expense of stunted brook trout that are virtually worthless. 4) Like Dodger said, we are dealing with RANGE...and, establishing CR populations in their historic range is what the DWR is doing. Including establishing "conservation" populations which populations designed to preserve the species within its range...not necessarily reintroduce it to it's historic waters.

Again, educate yourself by learning what the plan entails and what is actually being done...
http://wildlife.utah.gov/cutthroat/BCT/ ... -et-al.pdf



Lost Coyote said:


> Does anyone have any historic evidence that Colorado River Cuts ever live anywhere on the Boulder Mtn. above 9000 feet prior to their so called "re-introduction."
> 
> I got no problem with them in Boulder Creek, a got a big problem with them in the MAN_MADE lakes above 9000 feet where they could never have gotten, or lived historically...


Yes, the DWR does have evidence that CR cutts lived on the Boulder above 9000 feet prior to any reintroduction...in fact, Boulder Creek--the very creek this thread is about--is one of those places.

Do you have a big problem with brook trout, grayling, or rainbows being stocked above 9000 feet? If not, you are being hypocritical!


----------



## The Naturalist

PBH said:


> nailed it W2U!......
> The alternative is to not do the project, *and let some group like the Nature Conservancy group sue to list cutts under the Endangered Species Act.* Everyone complaining now would truly have reason to complain if that happened.
> 
> good job DWR and FS -- get it done!


I think you might be referring to groups like the Sierra Club....The Nature Conservancy might provide input and strategies to deal with the issues, but generally don't get involved in law suits and such as Greenpeace, Sierra club, SUWA, etc.


----------



## Lost Coyote

We musn't assume that anyone with a differing opinion is automatically ignorant.

Point: I can't understand killing a fish that is doing just fine above 9000 feet and replacing it with a fish that struggles above 9000 feet.

Evidence: The brook trout in Daurghty Basin have always out grown the Colorado River Cutts.

Point: I don't mind re-introducing Cutts to Boulder Creek, knock yourself out, appease the feds, pat yourself on the butt for restoring the environment, plant the **** thing till it runs red, just don't kill an equally beautiful fish to put them in places where they NEVER were, in the lakes up top.

Point: Not all the lakes killed and restocked with stunted Colorado River cutts had stunted Brookies in them previously.

Evidence: LONG WILLOW BOTTOMS where, if you knew what you were doing, you could catch trophy Brook trout prior to the poisoning...

Point: I can allow that you believe in the plan, please allow that I disagree with it without stooping to name calling.

I don't have a problem with fish in these lakes. I have a problem with replacing a good fish with a poor one on the premise that the poor one is being RE-INTRODUCED to places it never was.

Finally, 


> The alternative is to not do the project, and let some group like the Nature Conservancy group sue to list cutts under the Endangered Species Act. Everyone complaining now would truly have reason to complain if that happened.


Proceeding with the "project" to avoid a lawsuit doesn't jive...it's like we are running scared...fear can't be the motivation...

Maybe, we can actually listen to ALL opinions and come to a compromise, like introducing Cutts to the places they've actually lived, the lower reaches of boulder creek, and then leave the upper lakes with healthy populations of fish alone...


----------



## wyoming2utah

The Naturalist said:


> I think you might be referring to groups like the Sierra Club....The Nature Conservancy might provide input and strategies to deal with the issues, but generally don't get involved in law suits and such as Greenpeace, Sierra club, SUWA, etc.


Some of the groups who have been active in such lawsuits in the past are the Center for Biological Diversity, Biodiversity Legal Foundation, Biodiversity Associates, Center for Native Ecosystems, Colorado Wild, Biodiversity Conservation Alliance, Pacific Rivers Council, and SUWA.


----------



## Lost Coyote

I went ahead and educated myself by reading the stuff at the link Naturalist kindly left for me...

http://wildlife.utah.gov/cutthroat/BCT/literature/2000/2000-hepworth-et-al.pdf

there wasn't anything in there that indicated that Cutts lived above 9000 feet on the Boulder, but I did read this:



> Future success and direction of native trout restoration projects will be largely dependent on public support.


Let's get true "public support" before we proceed. We don't need to fear lawsuits or hide behind federal mandates if we can listen to all points of concern and make a reasoned plan that isn't influenced by fear of litigation or outside groups...


----------



## wyoming2utah

Lost Coyote said:


> We musn't assume that anyone with a differing opinion is automatically ignorant.
> 
> Point: I can't understand killing a fish that is doing just fine above 9000 feet and replacing it with a fish that struggles above 9000 feet.
> 
> Evidence: The brook trout in Daurghty Basin have always out grown the Colorado River Cutts.


Colorado River cutts do NOT struggle above 9,000 feet. They are native not only to the Boulder Mountain in places above 9,000 feet, but do very well in lakes above 9,000 feet. The brook trout in Dougherty Basin only started growing larger than the Colorado River cutts when the DWR stopped stocking them and started trying to eliminate them. But, that is irrelevant. Your claim is that cutts do not do well above 9,000 feet. This comment alone shows pure ignorance not only of Colorado River cutts but of the Boulder Mountain as well. I spent two summers shocking fish and working for the forest service in the Uinta Mountains. During that time, I shocked numerous streams looking for Colorado River cutts. When we found them in the same streams as brook trout, invariably they were larger than the brook trout and almost all the streams were above 9,000 feet. Also, as far as the Boulder Mountain goes, Pine Creek Reservoir has larger cutts in it now than Dougherty has ever had brook trout.


Lost Coyote said:


> Point: I don't mind re-introducing Cutts to Boulder Creek, knock yourself out, appease the feds, pat yourself on the butt for restoring the environment, plant the **** thing till it runs red, just don't kill an equally beautiful fish to put them in places where they NEVER were, in the lakes up top.
> 
> Point: Not all the lakes killed and restocked with stunted Colorado River cutts had stunted Brookies in them previously.
> 
> Evidence: LONG WILLOW BOTTOMS where, if you knew what you were doing, you could catch trophy Brook trout prior to the poisoning...


Again, I want to know whether you think stocking the lakes up top with brook trout, grayling, or rainbows is ok since they NEVER were in those lakes until stocked? It sounds to me like you are being incredibly hypocritical.

Also, Long Willow Bottoms was NEVER a trophy brook trout lake...NEVER! IN fact, Long Willow Bottom was stocked with yellowstone cutthroat prior to its treatment and the introduction of Colorado River Cutthroat. The small reservoir has some wild brook trout but their numbers were way too high to support large fish despite the fact that they weren't totally stunted. 


Lost Coyote said:


> Point: I can allow that you believe in the plan, please allow that I disagree with it without stooping to name calling.
> 
> I don't have a problem with fish in these lakes. I have a problem with replacing a good fish with a poor one on the premise that the poor one is being RE-INTRODUCED to places it never was.


I called you no names. I merely pointed out that your lack of education on the issue--or "ignorance" was appalling. Something that I still contend to be true.

Also, you keep using the words "reintroduced" as part of your argument. However, as Dodger and myself have already pointed out, that is NOT what is being done. In most of the lakes that cutts have replaced brook trout, the DWR is trying to improve the sport fishing by replacing stunted populations of trout. Your argument seems to center around two lakes--Dougherty and Long Willow Bottom. Dougherty, although it didn't have a stunted population of brook trout, was poisoned as part of the plan because of the need to establish a brood lake or place where eggs could be raised. It was a necessity. On the other hand, Round Willow Bottom--which is below Long Willow Bottom--was a lake with a severely stunted population of brook trout. Running between the two reservoirs is a small stream that supplies both reservoirs with perfect spawning habitat. In order for the sport fishing in Round Willow Bottom to be improved--which it has and very much so--Long Willow Bottom had to be treated and the brook trout removed. Otherwise, you end up right back at square one with a marginal fishery in the Long Willow Bottom and a poor fishery in Round Willow Bottom. The choice to poison both and totally remove brook trout from them was the right choice.



Lost Coyote said:


> Proceeding with the "project" to avoid a lawsuit doesn't jive...it's like we are running scared...fear can't be the motivation...
> 
> Maybe, we can actually listen to ALL opinions and come to a compromise, like introducing Cutts to the places they've actually lived, the lower reaches of boulder creek, and then leave the upper lakes with healthy populations of fish alone...


Again, your lack of education on the issue is abundantly evident. First of all, the whole project on Boulder Mountain surrounds the improvement of many fisheries for fishermen. Evidence that this plan is working exceptionally well can be found in places like Pine Creek Reservoir, Fish Creek Reservoir, and Round Willow Bottom among others. You seem to think this entire plan revolves around the "reintroduction" of native fish. IT DOES NOT! The DWR is simply killing two birds with one stone...avoiding the listing of CR cutts by expanding their existence and the establishment of conservation populations _within_ their historic range and improving poor fisheries by replacing stunted populations with controllable populations.

Also, native CR cutts are living currently in the HEADWATERS of Boulder Creek...not the lower stretches, but the UPPER stretches. These cutts have THRIVED in this stream above not only 9,000 feet, but closing in on 10,000 feet. The lower reaches of Boulder Creek do NOT have CR cutts because these lower stretches are NOT suitable to them.

Again, EDUCATE yourself, learn about what is actually being done and what has been planned, and lose your ignorance! Begin by reading this entire document:
http://wildlife.utah.gov/cutthroat/BCT/ ... -et-al.pdf


----------



## wyoming2utah

Lost Coyote said:


> there wasn't anything in there that indicated that Cutts lived above 9000 feet on the Boulder, but I did read this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Future success and direction of native trout restoration projects will be largely dependent on public support.
> 
> 
> 
> Let's get true "public support" before we proceed. We don't need to fear lawsuits or hide behind federal mandates if we can listen to all points of concern and make a reasoned plan that isn't influenced by fear of litigation or outside groups...
Click to expand...

Here is a link with more evidence for you: http://www.waterquality.utah.gov/WQS/TM ... d_UAAs.pdf

An excerpt from that link: " The discovery of Colorado River cutthroat trout in East Boulder Creek, a tributary to the Escalante River, in 1990 led to the speculation that the historic distribution of these native salmonids could have extended as far south as the Escalante River drainage. In 1997 and 1998 the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources biologists conducted field surveys throughout the drainage in search of Colorado River cutthroat trout populations. At the same time, they collected information on the distribution of other native and non-native fish species. The 1997/1998 surveys discovered five remnant populations of Colorado River cutthroat trout in the 17 headwater streams evaluated. The survey also established the distribution of non-native trout species - brook trout, rainbow trout, brown trout, and non-native cutthroat trout in the upper Escalante River drainage. *The Colorado River cutthroat trout occur only at higher elevations in the drainage: *- the East Fork and West Forks of Boulder Creek, West Branch Pine Creek, White Creek, and Water Canyon..."

Since the implementation of this plan, public approval has gained momentum because of the success seen at lakes that have seen the changes including Fish Creek Reservoir, Pine Creek Reservoir, Solitaire, Long Willow Bottom, and the Bullberry Lakes.


----------



## Catherder

The Naturalist said:


> PBH said:
> 
> 
> 
> nailed it W2U!......
> The alternative is to not do the project, *and let some group like the Nature Conservancy group sue to list cutts under the Endangered Species Act.* Everyone complaining now would truly have reason to complain if that happened.
> 
> good job DWR and FS -- get it done!
> 
> 
> 
> I think you might be referring to groups like the Sierra Club....The Nature Conservancy might provide input and strategies to deal with the issues, but generally don't get involved in law suits and such as Greenpeace, Sierra club, SUWA, etc.
Click to expand...

The "troublemaker" organization that has pestered the court with cutthroat related lawsuits is called "The Center for Biologic Diversity", an organization that seemingly has animal rights ties, based on their actions. Most mainstream conservation organizations have applauded the DWR cutt restoration efforts.

I have never been to the Boulders, but how can a program replacing stunted brookies with healthy native trout be a bad thing? The DWR knows that those few lakes kicking out the big brookies are a draw to the area and wouldn't want to damage that.

The same cannot be said about the Federal Government if lawsuit derived programs are forced upon us by the courts.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Catherder said:


> The DWR knows that those few lakes kicking out the big brookies are a draw to the area and wouldn't want to damage that.


Especially since the same guys who implemented the plan and are in charge of it are also guys who love catching those fish.


----------



## Wilford

Highest and best use. The DWR will never be perfect. No fishing situation is likely ever truly perfect. What the DWR wants to do is logical and for the best use of the resource. The Boulder is wonderful and the DWR is doing an amazing job within in the constraints of which they work. Just my two cents.


----------



## Lost Coyote

I don't like being told I'm a hypocrite, so, I'll restate: I feel that killing a fish that is doing well in a lake and replacing it with a fish that does poorly is crazy. The Brook Trout does well on the Boulder, yet the genocide against this fish continues. By all means, plant all the Brookies you want...

Last year most people went to the Willow Bottoms for the hybrids, not the cutts...the numbers of hybrids caught by my party the number of times we fished there FAR outnumbered the Cutts caught....

It's my guess, that most of the Cutts are, as we speak, winter killing in both lakes, so Utah will spend the money it will take to repopulate them with Cutts to keep all you all feeling that you've saved the world...

But, none of that matters...



> Long Willow Bottoms was NEVER a trophy brook trout lake...NEVER! IN fact, Long Willow Bottom was stocked with yellowstone cutthroat prior to its treatment and the introduction of Colorado River Cutthroat.


I wish I could take you fishing up there before Long Willow Bottoms was killed...we caught plenty of Brookies and a few Yellowstone Cutts, that were all bigger than ANY Colorado River we've ever caught out of there...

You want me to "educate" myself, your only arguments against anything I've said is that I'm "ignorant" but I know where I've fished, what I've seen, and I've seen the Colorado's struggle above 10000 feet...

From what I can see, the decision to plant the trout was made, then the state went out to try and justify it...that opinion is based on what I've seen on the Mountain, not the internet...

You haven't convinced me...

and when you say:



> The brook trout in Dougherty Basin only started growing larger than the Colorado River cutts when the DWR stopped stocking them and started trying to eliminate them.


I begin to question your credibility, there were large Brookies in Dougherty LONG before the Colorado Cutts ever got there...you should known that, what with all your experience and depth of knowledge...

*Thanks for the links*, I will read them with an open mind, but my point of view is shared by others, even if they aren't on this website...people who aren't ignorant or uneducated...even if you all say they are....even if they've never been to school, never read a research report written by your dad, never been on the internet...the guys I'm talking about have education based on experience, their credibility is not in question...


----------



## Dodger

Lost Coyote said:


> Now, we are blindly following a plan that
> 
> 
> 
> doesn't really make sense
> 
> 
> 
> . By your admission, the fish NEVER lived on these parts of the mountain. How "HISTORIC" is this SO CALLED "RANGE" if fish never lived there historically?
> 
> I'm not sure we should bow to an act that is so clearly wrong.
> 
> It doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

No sir, you are confusing the issues. You have totally mischaracterized my position. The "historic range" of the cutthroat trout includes the political geographic area we call Utah. If you make a new man made water way in Utah, that water way is in the "historic range" of the cutthroat trout.

Furthermore, the way to keep the cutthroats off the ESA, which benefits all of us, is to introduce the cutthroat to new areas, including those that are man made. That increases their "current range" under the ESA.

With all due respect, you don't seem to understand the issues involved here. You seem to be focused only on the brookies at the expense of Utahns' overall fishing ability.


----------



## Dodger

Lost Coyote said:


> I don't like being told I'm a hypocrite, so, I'll restate: I feel that killing a fish that is doing well in a lake and replacing it with a fish that does poorly is crazy. The Brook Trout does well on the Boulder, *yet the genocide against this fish continues*. By all means, plant all the Brookies you want...


Really? A genocide? A little sensational, don't you think?


----------



## brookieguy1

wyoming2utah said:


> Catherder said:
> 
> 
> 
> The DWR knows that those few lakes kicking out the big brookies are a draw to the area and wouldn't want to damage that.
> 
> 
> 
> Especially since the same guys who implemented the plan and are in charge of it are also guys who love catching those fish.
Click to expand...

 And they and their family won't tell where they're at! (just kidding, Heps. A P.M. would be nice though)


----------



## F/V Gulf Ventur

LOL!!! this thread is awesome!

I heart Native Cutthroat...and Boulder Mtn Brookies...more the merrier. 

Death to all Tiger Trout


----------



## Lost Coyote

> Furthermore, the way to keep the cutthroats off the ESA, which benefits all of us, is to introduce the cutthroat to new areas, including those that are man made. That increases their "current range" under the ESA.


Now, finally, after all of this, the real reason we are using poison to kill every single fish in some lakes and streams, that is not the right species i.e. 'genocide' (with the realization that genocide upon humans is much, much worse, and is happening in the world today)....

...the real reason we are killing Brookies is POLITICAL...to make the ESA happy...

All other arguments are mute.

Me. I don't think we should react in such a way.

Now, can you handle someone disagreeing with you?


----------



## Dodger

Lost Coyote said:


> Furthermore, the way to keep the cutthroats off the ESA, which benefits all of us, is to introduce the cutthroat to new areas, including those that are man made. That increases their "current range" under the ESA.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, finally, after all of this, the real reason we are using poison to kill every single fish in some lakes and streams, that is not the right species i.e. 'genocide' (with the realization that genocide upon humans is much, much worse, and is happening in the world today)....
> 
> ...the real reason we are killing Brookies is POLITICAL...to make the ESA happy...
> 
> All other arguments are mute.
> 
> Me. I don't think we should react in such a way.
> 
> Now, can you handle someone disagreeing with you?
Click to expand...

The issue is not so much "political" as it is a "legal" issue. But, that's exactly what I've been saying the whole time. This is, more than anything, a management opportunity to expand/restore the range of the Cutthroat trout.

The word is "moot."

You can disagree with DWR's decision to remove brookies from the Boulder Mountains. What I have been trying to express the whole time is that your disagreement is misguided because of what the ESA will do to fishing in Utah if the DWR doesn't proactively increase/restore the range of the Cutthroats.

If you would prefer to stick your head in the sand and let the cutts become endangered under the ESA, that is entirely within your discretion. It is, however, misguided.

Based on your responses in this thread and the excitement with which you seem to respond, I suggest that it is, perhaps, you that doesn't accept disagreement well. Your sole point has been that you don't want brookies killed because you don't like cutts, you think the brookies live fine in the Boulders on their own, and your experience tells you that brookies do better than cutts in the Boulders, when in fact, that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand.

Your option is not brookies or cutts. Your option is cutts or nothing. You are choosing nothing, and that is misguided.

P.S.

gen·o·cide
? -noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.

Fish are not a national, racial, political, cultural group.


----------



## Lost Coyote

Wow, you are smarter than me Dodger, formerly known as 'Gollum',

(Gollum is a fictional character from J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium. He was first introduced in the author's *fantasy* novel The Hobbit, and later became an important supporting character in its sequel, The Lord of the Rings.)

You are right and I am wrong, you've proved it!

Now I'm convinced, we should kill brook trout!!!!

Is 'convinced' the right word?

Utah should bow to the feds on every issue...the feds know best...


----------



## Brookie

Why can't the brook trout and Colorado cuts co-exist, There has been one lake mentioned that does this. Also, why doesn't the division stop planting some of the lakes that have stunted. until It winter kills or the fish are all caught. Just wondering


----------



## F/V Gulf Ventur

Anyone know where did all the Boulder mountain beavers went?



Killed another Tiger today... it felt really, really good!


----------



## Dodger

Lost Coyote said:


> Wow, you are smarter than me Dodger, formerly known as 'Gollum',
> 
> (Gollum is a fictional character from J. R. R. Tolkien's legendarium. He was first introduced in the author's *fantasy* novel The Hobbit, and later became an important supporting character in its sequel, The Lord of the Rings.)
> 
> You are right and I am wrong, you've proved it!
> 
> Now I'm convinced, we should kill brook trout!!!!
> 
> Is 'convinced' the right word?
> 
> Utah should bow to the feds on every issue...the feds know best...


I'm sorry if you feel like I've been heavy handed. I had no intention to "prove you wrong." My only purpose was to show you that the DWR has good reason for doing what they are doing.

I don't know how to be more clear. My point all along is that Utah can prevent itself from having to bow to the feds by planting cutts in rivers and lakes throughout Utah. It is precisely because I believe that the Feds do not know best that I want Utah to do what it can to prevent the feds from taking jurisdiction of Utah fishing.

Utah keeps the feds away by planting more cutts, increasing its range, and staying away from the ESA.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Brookie said:


> Why can't the brook trout and Colorado cuts co-exist, There has been one lake mentioned that does this. Also, why doesn't the division stop planting some of the lakes that have stunted. until It winter kills or the fish are all caught. Just wondering


The problem with these stunted lakes is that they are NOT stocked. These are lakes where the brookies overpopulate by reproducing themselves. Their numbers are uncontrollable and they eat themselves out of house and home. So, the reason that they can't co-exist in many places is that the brook trout reproduce at such a rate that their numbers soon exceed the food supply.

This is why Round Willow Bottom and Long Willow Bottom both had to be treated. The fish in Round Willow Bottom were stunted....and since the two small reservoirs are joined by a single stream and fish move freely between the two, eliminating brook trout from Round Willow Bottom and not Long Willow Bottom would have been a band aid to fix the problem. Brook trout from the upper reservoir soon would have migrated to the lower reservoir and overpopulated it again.

On the other hand, if the brook trout are unable to reproduce, then the possibility of the two fish coexisting is possible.


----------



## Lost Coyote

> I'm sorry if you feel like I've been heavy handed. I had no intention to "prove you wrong." My only purpose was to show you that the DWR has good reason for doing what they are doing.
> 
> I don't know how to be more clear. My point all along is that Utah can prevent itself from having to bow to the feds by planting cutts in rivers and lakes throughout Utah. It is precisely because I believe that the Feds do not know best that I want Utah to do what it can to prevent the feds from taking jurisdiction of Utah fishing.
> 
> Utah keeps the feds away by planting more cutts, increasing its range, and staying away from the ESA.


Fair enough...there are people who LOVE Boulder Mountain brook trout, and messing with the good fishing we've had down there is going to cause problems with them...

Your arguments have been reasoned, I just disagree on some points, as, you disagree with me, on some points...

It was a good discussion, and I think, a healthy one...there are a lot of sides to this issue...


----------



## PBH

Lost Coyote -- you keep talking about the DWR killing all the brook trout on the mountain - or "messing with the good fishing". Could you please be more specific of where this is continuing to happen? From what I know, rennovation of non-native brook trout is only scheduled to happen on East Boulder Creek, where brook trout have never reached sizes much larger than 6". "Good fishing" is sometimes a personal opinion. You view Long and Round Willow bottom as not being good anymore -- yet I fish them much more now than I did prior to the sport fish enhancement project. I think they're better - my opinion.


Dougherty was selected as a brood source lake for CRCs due to it being a "closed" system. The spring enters the lake then leaves the lake headed down the hill to Tall 4, where it then disappears. The stream does not connect with other stream systems in the area (Twitchell Creek, North Creek, etc). This makes it a prefect place for pure brood cutts. It severely limits the possibility of upstream migration of non-native rainbow trout that can hybridize with the pure cutts used to stock numerous places in Utah with CRCs. So, 1 lake was sacrificed out of dozens of lakes on the Boulder.

Round and Long have already been discussed why they were chosen. They were good selections for the CRCs. Anyone that has been into these lakes in early July and seen the small stream between the two lakes knows that they were good selections. It is truly a scene taken straight from Alaska -- a stream full of bright red spawning fish.

The Boulder is certainly not going through some sort of "genocide" to rid the lake of Brook Trout. There are ample opportunities for "trophy" brook trout on that mountain. That has not changed, nor will it. What has changed is that many lakes (Fish Creek, Solitaire, Pine Creek, Long and Round Willow Bottom, Bullberries, etc.) have undergone significant improvement to sport fishing -- evidenced by the ever increasing popularity of those places.

The biggest issue with Boulder Creek is that this project has the opportunity to connect two streams (East and West Boulder Creek) with pure, native cutthroat. Why is this significant? Two reasons immediately come to mind:
1. Genetic diversity among pure populations. Prior to this, both populations have been isolated, and genetic diversity among these populations has been limited. Allowing these populations to mix freely will only strengthen their population
2. Interconnectivity of the two streams will also prevent elimination of a population due to catastrophic event. A wildfire in East Boulder Creek could eliminate that population. However, if the streams are connected, chances are that the population will rebuild itself because you have some redundancy built in with West Boulder Creek. If non-native brook trout are removed. With the brook trout in the system, the cutthroat cannot thrive.


As for the cutts above 9000' elevation. Well, the meadow where the population of native, pure, undisturbed cutts have been living since long before white-man showed up? 9925 feet elevation. They thrive there. Luckily, natural obstacles have prevented upstream migration of non-native brook trout.

this is a good project.


----------



## Dodger

Lost Coyote said:


> Fair enough...there are people who LOVE Boulder Mountain brook trout, and messing with the good fishing we've had down there is going to cause problems with them...
> 
> Your arguments have been reasoned, I just disagree on some points, as, you disagree with me, on some points...
> 
> It was a good discussion, and I think, a healthy one...there are a lot of sides to this issue...


I've got no problem with that. I understand your point of view and we can just agree to disagree. There are many things to consider and different people have different priorities.

I am not up to date on the conservation science, but I am up to date on the legal issues. PBH seems to have some good points science wise and I will defer to him on that. But, the ESA is something to steer clear of as often as possible, IMO.


----------



## Nor-tah

I agree with F/V, where are the Beavers??


----------



## Packfish

Nor-tah said:


> I agree with F/V, where are the Beavers??


[attachment=0:3ine46t2]images.jpg[/attachment:3ine46t2]


----------



## wyoming2utah

Check out Steve Stoner's pics on this site of CR cutts and read some of his comments: http://www.bouldermountainguide.com/col ... hroat.html


----------



## F/V Gulf Ventur

Packfish said:


> Nor-tah said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with F/V, where are the Beavers??
> 
> 
> 
> [attachment=0:2gu8wfo1]images.jpg[/attachment:2gu8wfo1]
Click to expand...

LOL!!! Very nice.

PS... I am still wondering.


----------



## Lost Coyote

I can't deny that they are doing very well in some lakes at lower elevations (and by 'some lakes' I mean lakes that if I mention, people will get mad at me because, and I quote, "I've already mentioned to many good lakes!"), *and I think that it's a good idea to plant them in Boulder Creek*, but I've not seen them quite as big a Stoner shows in the upper lakes, maybe there are that big, I've just never seen them.

I just think that the brookies do better in the lakes on top.


----------



## wyoming2utah

The thing is that the lakes Stoner is showing pictures from and the lakes where these fish have been stocked in are all over 9,000 feet and some approaching 10,000 feet. The idea that one does better than the other--cutts better than brooks or vice versa--is completely dependent on the situation and is relative to many factors. For example, brook trout--in the best lakes--have shown better growth rates than cutts, BUT cutts have grown to larger sizes. And, growth is largely dependent on fish numbers...a great lake--like Fish Creek Reservoir that sits at almost 10,000 feet has proven to be bad for brook trout....but, immediately after it was poisoned fish grew quickly and very large (my biggest brook trout came from this lake three years after it was poisoned), but soon the lake was overpopulated and the brook trout stunted. Now, after the brook trout have been removed, splake, cutts, and tiger trout are all growing rapidly. And, with time, I bet all three species will achieve sizes that will dwarf my largest brook trout.


----------



## PBH

Lost Coyote said:


> I just think that the brookies do better in the lakes on top.


The lakes on Top haven't been included in the sportfish improvement projects. The biologists also know that the lakes up Top are better suited for brook trout (or grayling. Or, even both in a few instances where both cutts and brook trout do well in good water years. I've seen absolutely huge cutthroat and brook trout come out of Spectacle) -- which is why the lakes up Top haven't been included. I'm not exactly sure what your are worried about. Have you heard something that makes you worry? PM me if you're worried about naming specific names. Or, I'll just start naming names for you and all the hot-spot police can be mad at me (I'm not too worried about them!).


----------



## Nor-tah

wyoming2utah said:


> The thing is that the lakes Stoner is showing pictures from and the lakes where these fish have been stocked in are all over 9,000 feet and some approaching 10,000 feet. The idea that one does better than the other--cutts better than brooks or vice versa--is completely dependent on the situation and is relative to many factors. For example, brook trout--in the best lakes--have shown better growth rates than cutts, BUT cutts have grown to larger sizes. And, growth is largely dependent on fish numbers...a great lake--like Fish Creek Reservoir that sits at almost 10,000 feet has proven to be bad for brook trout....but, immediately after it was poisoned fish grew quickly and very large (my biggest brook trout came from this lake three years after it was poisoned), but soon the lake was overpopulated and the brook trout stunted. Now, after the brook trout have been removed, splake, cutts, and tiger trout are all growing rapidly. *And, with time, I bet all three species will achieve sizes that will dwarf my largest brook trout*.


If they can keep water in it... That thing was so low it was unbelievable this October. Maybe you guys could PM Lost Coyote instead of throwing lake names out on the open board? So far 1000 people have viewed this thread in 5 days. :|


----------



## hockey

AMEN, nortah! You guys need to shut the hell up!! You are all just preachin to the choir.
FYI, Boulder town is filing suit in Garfield Co. court to stop the poisoning, all of the towns drinking water comes from either Boulder Creek or Deer Creek


----------



## PBH

Nor-tah said:


> Maybe you guys could PM Lost Coyote instead of throwing lake names out on the open board? So far 1000 people have viewed this thread in 5 days. :|





hockey said:


> AMEN, nortah! You guys need to shut the hell up!!


naming a few names of lakes on the Boulder isn't going to hurt anything. Each of these lakes can easily be found on a map. You guys only bring added interest to these lakes when you start freaking out over naming a lake or two. Think about it. If I said "Bake Skillet" and you said "holy ****, don't say the word 'Bake Skillet' or everyone in the world will want to go catch a big brook trout!" -- then people are going to think that maybe there is something special about Bake Skillet. However, if you don't reply, then the majority of people are going to just keep on reading without ever thinking twice about Bake Skillet...

hot spotting a remote mountain lake located in rural Utah isn't going to hurt things. Especially right now, when most of those lakes are inaccessible. Chill out.


----------



## Nor-tah

Not many lakes on Boulder are "remote" The most remote lake on the mountain is a 3.5 mile hike. You underestimate people. I know before I joined any forums I spent a lot of time online reading them and taking notes. Funny how you can post what you like but if we have any sugestions we are told to "chill out". Sorry Cliff got you all riled up with his bad spelling over on BFT. Please respect the majority here and like you say, "let them go work for their info"


----------



## Catherder

Nor-tah said:


> Sorry Cliff got you all riled up with his bad spelling over on BFT.


I doubt anyone was too riled up on BFT today. I thought that "Yes we do have WORD class fishing here in Utah, that bucket must have run over and made a great Lake Powell ... " (Caps his) was pretty funny. (Is that fishing worth talking about?)

Anyway, carry on and I will go back to my note taking. :O_D: :wink:


----------



## PBH

with a bonus limit of brook trout on that mountain, I'm just not that worried about naming a few lakes up there. Why do you think I'm willing to help people (YOU) as much as I do? Remember where the big brook trout come from -- lakes with FEW brook trout! A little pressure at many of these lakes isn't hurting anything.


some of you guys are greedy! Where's the love? I'll share my Bud Lite.


----------



## EmptyNet

:lol: PBH you have a pretty good attitude about fishing. Its funny to me that their are guys that think any lake in southern Utah is a "secret spot". I will be sure to take you up on the beer if I ever come across you fishin the same place as me.


----------



## Brookie

The pressure has increased on the boulder, hopefully it will help the area. I will say that once the hybrids are caught and killed they have to be planted back in there. Making the catching not as good. Also, the places that I catch the 5lb brookies aren't secrets, everybody seems to fish them.


----------



## wyoming2utah

hockey said:


> AMEN, nortah! You guys need to shut the hell up!! You are all just preachin to the choir.
> FYI, Boulder town is filing suit in Garfield Co. court to stop the poisoning, all of the towns drinking water comes from either Boulder Creek or Deer Creek


Oh please....FYI the town of Boulder is trying to stop the poisoning but NONE of the towns drinking water comes from either Boulder Creek or Deer Creek. That was misinformation printed by the newspapers. The drinking water from both towns comes from irrigation wells and aquifers that don't have anything to do with the water in Boulder Creek or Deer Creek. Also, The treatment projects are high enough on the mountain and detox stations are all located well above Garkane Power Plant and rotenone would never even reach the town of Boulder nor their wells. Also, rotenone has shown to NOT affect mammals or humans. Boulder's fear of rotenone is about as nonsensical as the fear of using clorox to wash your white clothes.

Check this link for some good information about rotenone and its danger to humans:
http://www.newmexicotu.org/Rotenone%20summary.pdf
Anyways, next time I am casting for huge brookies at Cook's lake, I will be thinking of all the damage I have done hotspotting the lakes... :roll:


----------



## Packfish

PBH said:


> Nor-tah said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you guys could PM Lost Coyote instead of throwing lake names out on the open board? So far 1000 people have viewed this thread in 5 days. :|
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hockey said:
> 
> 
> 
> AMEN, nortah! You guys need to shut the hell up!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> naming a few names of lakes on the Boulder isn't going to hurt anything. Each of these lakes can easily be found on a map. You guys only bring added interest to these lakes when you start freaking out over naming a lake or two. Think about it. If I said "Bake Skillet" and you said "holy ****, don't say the word 'Bake Skillet' or everyone in the world will want to go catch a big brook trout!" -- then people are going to think that maybe there is something special about Bake Skillet. However, if you don't reply, then the majority of people are going to just keep on reading without ever thinking twice about Bake Skillet...
> 
> hot spotting a remote mountain lake located in rural Utah isn't going to hurt things. Especially right now, when most of those lakes are inaccessible. Chill out.
Click to expand...

Hell it isn't the pressure that bothers me naming lakes it's the friggin trash that I have to see and then carry out. One of my goats has a pack that says " Utah Sanitation worker " on it. 
.


----------



## PBH

Packfish said:


> Hell it isn't the pressure that bothers me naming lakes it's the friggin trash that I have to see and then carry out. One of my goats has a pack that says " Utah Sanitation worker " on it.
> .


So then why are you jumping my case for naming lakes? Take it up with the pricks leaving the trash! Most of the people reading these forums (I would hope!) aren't the people leaving the garbage behind anyway...


----------



## Packfish

PBH said:


> Packfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hell it isn't the pressure that bothers me naming lakes it's the friggin trash that I have to see and then carry out. One of my goats has a pack that says " Utah Sanitation worker " on it.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> So then why are you jumping my case for naming lakes? Take it up with the pricks leaving the trash! Most of the people reading these forums (I would hope!) aren't the people leaving the garbage behind anyway...
Click to expand...

 Some are - other wise no one would be worried about naming lakes- which I'm not.- I don't see where I was jumping your case- I'm usually in agreement with you - maybe someone else- you Heps are a touchy bunch.


----------



## PBH

apologies Pack. It was Nortah and hockey jumping me for naming places.


----------



## Packfish

PBH said:


> apologies Pack. It was Nortah and hockey jumping me for naming places.


 Still like that Avatar (0:


----------



## Wilford

Ain't America great! We all can have our own opinions. Just one request. Come about November, let's have another discussion on "How the Boulder isn't effected by hot spotting."
I would like very much to pay tribute to some of the wisom on this thread at that time.


----------



## Wilford

Just wanted to thank everyone for the "new ideas" of places to fish. Also my cousin from Arizona is grateful too. He just doesn't post on here.


----------



## Lost Coyote

I got one word for you "Posey"

That's where I fish!


----------



## PBH

Wilford said:


> I would like very much to pay tribute to some of the wisdom on this thread at that time...
> ...Also my cousin from Arizona is grateful too.


Sure. Any time. If you want more specifics, I'd love to help you out. I've been fishing the Boulders for over 30 years now. My father spent much of his 30 year career with the UDWR managing lakes on the Boulder. I have no problems mentioning the names of many lakes on the Boulder, and in fact think that a little extra pressure can actually be good for many of the lakes. There is nothing wrong with trying to help other anglers be successful, and find some great places to fish that they may not have been to in the past. Good luck -- I hope the information you found here servers you well.

I look forward to the discussion in November (I am assuming November, because the majority of the lakes close for fishing from November 1 - 3rd Saturday of April the following year). Also, make sure to take advantage of the bonus limit of brook trout -- total of 8 trout if at least 4 are brook trout, only 2 of which may be over 14". Good luck! Let's talk in November!

P.S. -- please don't go fish Bake Skillet. If you do, we'll have a very good laugh.


----------



## Wilford

PBH-
Your the man.


----------



## Packbasket

hell I've got socks older than most of you boulder experts, kill the specks stock more cutts, whatever, who cares? As long as the water is managed to sustain FISH what's the beef?
We refer to the creek as ABOVE or BELOW, above 12 adn below 12, the farther down stream you go the more species you'll run into, and if any of you have fished the boulder creek from end to end you'll not only find cutts, brookies(specks), but the occasional rainbow and even cat! 

25 years ago and more we had more than one shore lunch by cutting over from our camp near deer creek to boulder creek and catching a catfish on boulder creek for lunch, my wife about 15 years ago caught a smallmouth too but we were far down near the escalante at that point. 

1969 was the first year anyone started hearing about Boulder creek in print, but it was short lived, then after the road was paved it was mentioned as a great creek to fish, "wilderness" was the catch word, and it started getting hit hard, big groups Below, but we left then and probably it has been pounded fierce since then.

Each year we fish Below for a day and have a good time, but we've caught large Cutts from the jct of deer and boulder creeks all the way back to 12 so my question is Where do they plan on killing the fish off? The whole thing or only the headwaters?
If they rotenone the whole thing they will be losing some trophy class Cutts and I am sure the cats are still in there too  don't want to lose the cats.... :mrgreen:


----------



## wyoming2utah

Packbasket said:


> Where do they plan on killing the fish off? The whole thing or only the headwaters?
> If they rotenone the whole thing they will be losing some trophy class Cutts and I am sure the cats are still in there too  don't want to lose the cats.... :mrgreen:


Only fish above 12 will be killed...the detox stations will be well above 12. Everything below the detox stations and 12 will be safe.


----------



## Nor-tah

wyoming2utah said:


> Packbasket said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do they plan on killing the fish off? The whole thing or only the headwaters?
> If they rotenone the whole thing they will be losing some trophy class Cutts and I am sure the cats are still in there too  don't want to lose the cats.... :mrgreen:
> 
> 
> 
> Only fish above 12 will be killed...the detox stations will be well above 12. Everything below the detox stations and 12 will be safe.
Click to expand...

I'm done fighting about this so this is a serious question. If they put a detox station well above 12 wont the Brooks in the lower section just swim up and stunt out again?? Or are they going to place a screen or make some falls??


----------



## wyoming2utah

Nor-tah said:


> wyoming2utah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Packbasket said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do they plan on killing the fish off? The whole thing or only the headwaters?
> If they rotenone the whole thing they will be losing some trophy class Cutts and I am sure the cats are still in there too  don't want to lose the cats.... :mrgreen:
> 
> 
> 
> Only fish above 12 will be killed...the detox stations will be well above 12. Everything below the detox stations and 12 will be safe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm done fighting about this so this is a serious question. If they put a detox station well above 12 wont the Brooks in the lower section just swim up and stunt out again?? Or are they going to place a screen or make some falls??
Click to expand...

I figured this question would be asked...fish barriers will be constructed and may already be in place to prevent the upstream migration. Generally, "Fish migration barriers will be constructed at several sites to prevent brook trout or other nonnative trouts from gaining access back into treated areas and to expand areas where native trout can be reestablished. Migration barriers will be constructed from local rocks and boulders to form falls of 1.5 to 2.5 m that will prevent upstream movement of fish."


----------



## Nor-tah

Good to know. I sure hope no one throws the fish they catch from the lower stretches up into the higher. That would be a big waste of money and not smart at all. Thanks for the response.


----------



## PBH

Nor-tah said:


> Good to know. I sure hope no one throws the fish they catch from the lower stretches up into the higher. That would be a big waste of money and not smart at all. Thanks for the response.


That is one reason that they use multiple fish barriers. There is already at least 1 barrier (I would guess more) in place near the confluence of East and West Boulder Creek.

PackBasket -- many of your questions (while already answered by W2U) can be found here:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r4/dixie/projects/ ... ndex.shtml


----------



## Critter

eishirukofuko said:


> This is immoral and callous!!


:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:


----------



## PBH

eishirukofuko said:


> This is immoral and callous!!


Cutthroat trout lives matter.


----------



## Catherder

PBH said:


> Cutthroat trout lives matter.


Defund the DWR, no, wait, don't do that. I got it.

Defund $FW.


----------



## Ray

eishirukofuko said:


> This is immoral and callous!!


Suck it


----------



## elkunited

eishirukofuko said:


> This is immoral and callous!!


I support this first post &#128514;&#128514;&#128514;


----------



## BG1

PBH said:


> Cutthroat trout lives matter.


Only when BG1 kills them&#128521;


----------



## Critter

The spammers are getting creative....


----------



## Bax*

eishirukofuko said:


> This is immoral and callous!!


Bye bye!


----------



## Bax*

9/10 I find spammers like to revive some old thread and make an obscure comment that suddenly sparks responses from members. But this last one quoted above really gave me a chuckle.


----------

