# Lake Trout in Strawberry..



## goosefreak (Aug 20, 2009)

So, I'v been kinda gearing up for lakers lately.. They have been on my mind alot, I'v also been hitting the Ice up at Strawberry alot and I was thinking that particular lake in my mind would be a great lake to have lake trout in, here are my reasons why, as I would also like to hear your opinions about this subject.. Strawberry is a big lake, its a cold water lake, its beep, plenty of chubs and crawdads, and rainbow minnow and whatever else may be swimming around. It is my opinion that the lake trout would not hurt the cutthroat or rainbow population (or the kokanee), I think they would do a number on the chub. For me, I think that would be awesome to have Lakers in there! what do you all think? do you think strawberry could hold lake trout?? do you think it can/will ever hold them? are there reasons why they could/wouldn't be in there??....Thoughts


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

They probably could do really well there. In fact, that's probably the reason they will never be put in there. 

Strawberry gets more pressure per acre than any lake in Utah. DWR stocks the living crap out of Strawberry so people can actually take fish home (since the slot was put in place). Lake Trout would destroy all of those rainbows. They'd probably chew up any cutthroat fry too. 

Also, Strawberry accounts for something like 30% of the natural range of the Bonneville/Bear Lake cutthroat. DWR relies on Strawberry to keep the cutts off the endangered species list. They aren't going to risk that to put Lake Trout in there. 

Bear lake, Fish Lake, Lake Catherine, Salem Pond and that other little one we share with Wyoming are your places to get Lake Trout. That list won't change any time soon.


----------



## brookieguy1 (Oct 14, 2008)

Dodger said:


> They probably could do really well there. In fact, that's probably the reason they will never be put in there.
> 
> Strawberry gets more pressure per acre than any lake in Utah. DWR stocks the living crap out of Strawberry so people can actually take fish home (since the slot was put in place). Lake Trout would destroy all of those rainbows. They'd probably chew up any cutthroat fry too.
> 
> ...


 Lake Catherine
I believe you're thinking of Lake Mary. Catherine has only tiny brook trout.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Wince.

Except for bear lake, which is ultra oligotrophic, Lake trout have been a problem for native and other trout species. Are you familiar with Yellowstone lake? The National park service is exerting greater resources than even the Utah lake carp seiners to try and get rid of as many lake trout as possible because they are depleting the native cutts. At Strawberry, sure, they would eat some chubs, but they'd just as readily devour both cutts, rainbows, and kokes with equal abandon. It probably would crash or at minimum negatively impact the trout fishing that most folks enjoy there. 

No thank you.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

brookieguy1 said:


> Lake Catherine
> I believe you're thinking of Lake Mary. Catherine has only tiny brook trout.


Good catch Brookie. But good catches are what you're known for. ;-)

Lake Mary is what I meant.


----------



## brookieguy1 (Oct 14, 2008)

Strawberry needs to go on as is. A place folks can go easily catch a fish that keeps them smiling and feelin' good. It's a great cutt fishery, and should stay that way. Lake trout would jeopardize the cutts. I would like Strawberry to stay as is and keep attracting the masses to it's easy fishing and ease the pressure on more desirable venues (IMO). If anything, I would like to see even more sterile rainbows stocked. But macks? Absolutely not!


----------



## goosefreak (Aug 20, 2009)

Good feedback guys! I guess i'v just got an itch to get out after a big ol Mac!


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

No lake trout needed. Just look at how screwed up Yellowstone Lake is.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

I am adamant against lakers in there. The only fish I care about in that lake are the Kokes. 'Bows are ok... I understand the need for the cutt's to keep them off the protection list, but I hate'em. Luckily they are doing well enough the DWR is allowed to put other species in there. 

Used to be some nice brookies in Strawberry too, I'm sure there are still a few around but they are pretty rare.

-DallanC


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

maybe someone with more knowledge on the subject could chime in here and further clarify....


I believe that Strawberry has oxygen problems (stratification) at certain depths, which would cause problems for lake trout.


So, aside from "why fix what ain't broke", I don't think lake trout would do well anyway.


----------



## gmanhunter (Dec 27, 2007)

Lakers in there would be as bad as putting northerpike in it. Big lakers will eat 12" size plus rainbows, salmon, and what ever else they can. I have caught lakers at the gorge, that has had fish lodged in its mouth at the size you can keep at the berry. Strawberry is best left at what it is now, except for one exception. I would love to see cheese hooks, and cheese all together baned from the lake. I see so many fish floating dead, due to someone ripping the guts out of a fish to save a 5 cent cheese hook. I use jigs everwhere I fish. With using jigs I hook my fish in the mouth, and return them unharmed. I know that will spark a debate, but that is just how I feel.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

gmanhunter said:


> Lakers in there would be as bad as putting northerpike in it. Big lakers will eat 12" size plus rainbows, salmon, and what ever else they can.


Not with the oxygen issue. The lakers would struggle to survive. So, predation really wouldn't be an issue.

They just plain wouldn't work. Here, read this quote that I found from Doug Sakaguchi (UDWR Biologist speaking on Strawberry prior to the treatment in 1988 ):


Doug Sakaguchi said:


> Division of Wildlife Resources biologist Doug Sakaguchi explained the thermocline at Strawberry. He said late in the summer, the upper 30 feet of water is warmed much more than the lower layer. The difference becomes so great that the two layers cease to mix. Dead organic material in the lower layer is decomposed by bacteria. Bacteria uses oxygen in its composition. Since a body of water is oxygenated through its exposure to air at the surface, the layer below 30 feet is cut off from oxygen, making it unable to support fish. The fish all stay in the upper 30 feet of water.


Lake trout just aren't going to do well trying to stay in 30 feet of water during the summer. Strawberry just wouldn't support lake trout.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

A few more troubling comments regarding Strawberry:



Dodger said:


> Strawberry gets more pressure per acre than any lake in Utah.


ummm.... I'm not so sure. In fact, I think that both Panguitch Lake and Navajo Lake in southern utah get more angling hours per acre than Strawberry.



Dodger said:


> Also, Strawberry accounts for something like 30% of the natural range of the Bonneville/Bear Lake cutthroat. DWR relies on Strawberry to keep the cutts off the endangered species list. They aren't going to risk that to put Lake Trout in there.





DallanC said:


> I understand the need for the cutt's to keep them off the protection list, but I hate'em. Luckily they are doing well enough the DWR is allowed to put other species in there.


both of these comments are 100% incorrect.

Bear Lake cutthroat trout are stocked in Strawberry STRICTLY FOR SPORTFISHING. Strawberry Reservoir is NOT in the Bear Lake cutthroat historic range, which means they have 0 implications for native cutthroat conservation. The ONLY place where stocking Bear Lake cutthroat counts towards conservation is Bear Lake, which makes up 100% of their native range.

Whenever Bear Lake cutthroat are stocked anywhere other than Bear Lake (eg. Strawberry, Scofield, Panguitch, Minersville) it is STRICTLY for sport fishing / rough fish control purposes.

If you wanted to stock native cutthroat in Strawberry Reservoir as a conservation project, they would have to be Colorado River cutthroat.
(that sounds like an pretty awesome idea!!!)


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

PBH said:


> ummm.... I'm not so sure. In fact, I think that both Panguitch Lake and Navajo Lake in southern utah get more angling hours per acre than Strawberry.


DWR says Strawberry gets as many trips as Lake Powell (which is 13 times bigger) and has 88 hours/acre/year of fishing pressure.

http://wildlife.utah.gov/strawberry/straw2.php

Here's what DesNews says:

"Over the years, Panguitch has been one of Utah's most popular fishing waters. Strawberry gets more pressure over the course of a year, but Panguitch, being smaller, gets more pressure per surface acre. The latest findings show Strawberry gets about 100 hours of fishing pressure per acre, where Panguitch gets about 125 hours per acre. Currently, Strawberry covers about 14,000 surface acres where Panguitch is around 1,200 surface acres."

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/...eatment-rids-waters-of-just-chubs.html?pg=all

So, I'm right if "per acre" means "per acre." If "per acre" means "per surface acre," you're right. But, overall, it's irrelevant to the point I was making.



PBH said:


> both of these comments are 100% incorrect.
> 
> Bear Lake cutthroat trout are stocked in Strawberry STRICTLY FOR SPORTFISHING. Strawberry Reservoir is NOT in the Bear Lake cutthroat historic range, which means they have 0 implications for native cutthroat conservation. The ONLY place where stocking Bear Lake cutthroat counts towards conservation is Bear Lake, which makes up 100% of their native range.
> 
> ...


Sport fishing might be the reason they stock Cutts in those particular places but they certainly use those stockings in their court filings when the Center for Biological Diversity sues to get a particular Cutt on the Endangered Species List.

You probably aren't aware but there is a difference between the way the Bush administration interpreted the ESA and the way the Obama administration interprets the ESA. If a population of a species existed anywhere under the Bush administration, the historic range was all that was to be taken into account. So if you have a population of Bear Lake Cutts in Strawberry, they did not count for HISTORIC RANGE purposes. Under the Obama administration, if any species is endangered ANYWHERE in it's CURRENT OR HISTORIC range, it can be listed.

Look at the response by DWR/USFS that was filed in court when the Center for Biological Diversity sued.

Even if they are stocked for sportfishing, they count as far as the ESA is concerned.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

PBH said:


> Not with the oxygen issue. The lakers would struggle to survive. So, predation really wouldn't be an issue.
> 
> They just plain wouldn't work. Here, read this quote that I found from Doug Sakaguchi (UDWR Biologist speaking on Strawberry prior to the treatment in 1988 ):


That's interesting, in that the majority of Kokanee we catch are around 50ft, well below the "dead zone" he mentions. We've caught them down to 65ft. I agree that lakers wont live down there... but the Kokes certainly don't seem to mind it.

-DallanC


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Dodger said:


> So, I'm right if "per acre" means "per acre." If "per acre" means "per surface acre," you're right. But, overall, it's irrelevant to the point I was making.


Actually, you just proved me right.

Acre is a unit of area, so "surface" acre is a redundant term. If you are referring to acre-foot (volume) then it leans further to Panguitch because Strawberry is deeper, and volume is even greater in proportion to Panguitch.

The DWR survey for Panguitch and Navajo did not cover the full year -- so, I'll give in on that side of this debate. Strawberry may have more pressure during the winter than Navajo. Panguitch could easily rival Strawberry in winter pressure, but we don't have the numbers to prove it right now. We do know, thanks to the DWR survey, that both Panguitch and Navajo receive higher pressure than Strawberry during the summer months.

Anyway, you confirmed my point with the data you cited:


Dodger said:


> Strawberry gets about 100 hours of fishing pressure per acre, where Panguitch gets about 125 hours per acre.


Acre and surface acre are the same thing. Strawberry = 100 hours per acre, Panguitch = 125 hours per [surface] acre. 100 < 125. Strawberry < Panguitch.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

and, as for the cutts: they're in there to eat chubs and provide a sport fishery for us to enjoy.


It would still be a great place for CRC's!


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

PBH said:


> Actually, you just proved me right.
> 
> Acre is a unit of area, so "surface" acre is a redundant term. If you are referring to acre-foot (volume) then it leans further to Panguitch because Strawberry is deeper, and volume is even greater in proportion to Panguitch.
> 
> ...


Ok, so do you just want to be right or do you want to explain how that's relevant to the point?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Dodger said:


> Ok, so do you just want to be right or do you want to explain how that's relevant to the point?


Well, because you claimed that:



Dodger said:


> .
> 
> Strawberry gets more pressure per acre than any lake in Utah.


And that's incorrect. Panguitch get's more pressure than Strawberry.

And, further, the cutts in Strawberry are not there to keep them off the ESA. They are there to eat chubs and provide a sport fishery. If Strawberry were truly being managed as a native cutthroat trout preservation reservoir, then it would be full of colorado river cutthroat -- which I think would be a much more productive scenario vs. lake trout, which we've already discussed would not be suitable in Strawberry due to oxygen stratification and thermoclines.

Anything else?


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

PBH said:


> Well, because you claimed that:
> 
> And that's incorrect. Panguitch get's more pressure than Strawberry.
> 
> ...


So the answer is yes. You just want to point out that Strawberry doesn't get the most pressure per acre in Utah even though that's irrelevant to the issue or the point and does nothing to advance the discussion.

What Strawberry is being managed for (sport fishing or cutthroat preservation) is irrelevant. What matters TO THE ESA is that there are live cutts swimming around in the lake. And having more cutts swimming around in more lakes makes them less likely to be listed.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Dodger said:


> You just want to point out that Strawberry doesn't get the most pressure per acre in Utah even though that's irrelevant to the issue or the point and does nothing to advance the discussion.


Wait a minute. YOU brought up the pressure issue. Not me. And, YES -- I did, in fact, want to point out that what you had said was incorrect.

Bad information is bad information. irrelevant or relevant makes no difference. You gave bad information, so I pointed out the correct info.

As for the original question (lake trout in Strawberry), they wouldn't survive, so preying upon a cutthroat (whether native or not) is irrelevant.

Regarding the CfBD taking the UDWR to court over Bonneville cutthroat trout populations, the UDWR would be able to win that fight regardless of Strawberry Reservoir populations of cutthroat, thanks to the efforts the UDWR in restoring hundreds of miles of _historic range_ for bonneville cutthroat. FWIW, the CfBD has also petitioned in the past to list Colorado River cutts -- so, since Strawberry is actually in the Colorado River drainage, maybe we should forget Bonneville / Bear Lake cutts in Strawberry completely, and move towards Colorado River cutts? Would that end our dispute?


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

Yeah, I brought up the pressure issue because Strawberry is a put and take fishery with rules designed to give people the ability to keep Rainbows so they are happy. Lake Trout chewing up rainbows would mean less rainbows and more people unhappy that they can't keep a fish for dinner. Whether Strawberry is #1 or #2 on the list of popular fishing destinations is irrelevant because there is still a lot of pressure on Strawberry to cough up some rainbows for people to eat.

But, yes, you are Lord Protector of all truth in unqualified statements on the forum. So, thanks for that.

DWR would win that fight now, yes. Years ago, maybe not. They have done a lot to increase the habitat for them in recent years specifically because they don't want to lose that fight. But, as I said before historic range is NOT a relevant consideration under the Obama Administration where there are sporadic living populations of so-called endangered species.

CRCs are another big issue and maybe it would make more sense to put CRCs in Strawberry than the BL cutts. I wouldn't have a problem with that. 

If you'd chill out a little bit, you'd win a lot more people to your cause. I've been on your side of a lot of different things historically. Just picking fights doesn't really answer questions, discuss fisheries, or add to the discussion.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

it takes two to tango.


----------



## Dodger (Oct 20, 2009)

You can dance by yourself but you need two to have someone to step on your toes.


----------



## brookieguy1 (Oct 14, 2008)

PBH said:


> and, as for the cutts: they're in there to eat chubs and provide a sport fishery for us to enjoy.
> 
> It would still be a great place for CRC's!


I agree, since Boulder isn't.


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Just a couple juicy tidbits, attended the strawberry 5 yr management plan meeting yesterday. 

For Dallan c there is currently a large push to increase the number of Kokanee planted in the lake by about 400,000 fish annually. 

BL cutt are planted in the reservoir for the sole purpose of chub management. Fishermen in utah have repeatedly shown that they would much rather chase other 'sport fish'. IE coho, tigers, most popularly brookies, or Muskie basically some ungodly large predator. 

The thermocline and oxygenation theories while somewhat accurate don't hold much water when you actually fish the lake. Fish are COMMONLY caught at depths ranging from 1-100 feet. though the number goes down after 50 ft so obviously there is some limiting factor.

Strawberry receives annually 1-1.2 million man hours of fishing pressure far and away more than any other utah fishery, it's economic footprint is 3x greater than any other lake, and in terms of just visitors it stomps all of utah. 

The case can always be made that it needs more fish...


----------



## gmanhunter (Dec 27, 2007)

What does all this fighting have to do with putting lake trout in the lake? When it all comes down to it, it just doesnt make sense to put lake trout in the lake. In my opinoin, the lake does fine the way it is (with the exception of chubs). It could have a few more fish stocked, but we all could practice catch and release also.


----------



## swbuckmaster (Sep 14, 2007)

I fish lake trout more than any fish in utah besides kokanee and im not a fan of lake trout in strawberry. I just don't think they would do very good. 

I would be a fan of planting brown trout, or hybrids. 

I could honestly care less if I ever caught another cutthroat sock fighting fish but since my kids enjoy catching those easy fish I still hit the berry once in a while.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

berrysblaster said:


> For Dallan c there is currently a large push to increase the number of Kokanee planted in the lake by about 400,000 fish annually.


Awesome!



> The thermocline and oxygenation theories while somewhat accurate don't hold much water when you actually fish the lake. Fish are COMMONLY caught at depths ranging from 1-100 feet. though the number goes down after 50 ft so obviously there is some limiting factor.


Yup, my experience as well. We catch'em deeper and deeper as the summer goes on. I don't see rainbows going super deep, but we do hook into the occasional cutt at deep depths. Personally I determine fishing depth according to water temperature ;-)

-DallanC


----------



## harlin (Mar 18, 2012)

berrysblaster said:


> Strawberry receives annually 1-1.2 million man hours of fishing pressure far and away more than any other utah fishery, it's economic footprint is 3x greater than any other lake, and in terms of just visitors it stomps all of utah.


You didn't factor in the size of the lake..Total fishing hours per year means very little to calculate pressure because the amount of pressure a lake receives is relative to the size of the lake..Number of fishing hours PER ACRE is what you need to look at. That is why a smaller body of water may actually receive more pressure on the system.

Think about it this way: if I had a 2ft wide by 2ft deep puddle in my backyard that had 1 trout in it, and 100 people were fishing in it, then that puddle would be receiving much greater pressure than at strawberry..


----------



## harlin (Mar 18, 2012)

Also, I should add one more thing. This wasn't mentioned on this thread, but the difference in depth between the strawberry side and the soldier creek side is great. IMO, even though they have the same species they are totally different environments. 

The strawberry side has a maximum depth of 90 ft I believe. The soldier creek side has much steeper banks and reaches depths of 200 ft near the dam, and over 100 ft in other places..

They actually were two separate reservoirs at one point, so I believe people should clarify which portion they are talking about if they are going to talk about depth..

I don't think lake trout would do well on the strawberry side...The banks are just not steep enough..To get to deep water they would have to go way out into the lake..But if they went out there, what would they feed on??

I could see the lakers doing okay on the soldier creek side maybe..But who knows. It would be nice if a biologist chimed in on this..


----------



## berrysblaster (Nov 27, 2013)

Ok harlin although I really could care less, you are correct and my point was not pressure. It was simply to paint the picture of sheer man hours that it receives.

If you were to gauge it roughly, one would figure that of the 18000 surface acres, roughly 70% would be fishable. Given depth, water temp and man made incursions ramps and docks. With some very rough math that's about 80-90 man hours per acre per summer. I personally think that's a fair assessment. Now given the currant catch rate of .5 fish/ hour that means that each acre of the lake is yielding 40-45 fish. That's 550-600,000 fish that are caught each summer. Again I think that's fair. With an over all mortality, including both harvest and catch and release mortality, of 70% you have 350-400000 fish dying of man made causes. I know the divisions harvest estimates and this lines up with them. Add natural causes in and it isn't hard to see how 750,000 plus fish die each year. 

My point being that strawberry is in a world of its own when it comes to sheer numbers. Alan and Justin have done a spectacular job managing, they know what the lake needs and where it is going.


----------



## Dukes_Daddy (Nov 14, 2008)

harlin said:


> You didn't factor in the size of the lake..Total fishing hours per year means very little to calculate pressure because the amount of pressure a lake receives is relative to the size of the lake..Number of fishing hours PER ACRE is what you need to look at. That is why a smaller body of water may actually receive more pressure on the system.
> 
> Think about it this way: if I had a 2ft wide by 2ft deep puddle in my backyard that had 1 trout in it, and 100 people were fishing in it, then that puddle would be receiving much greater pressure than at strawberry..


\

Dude why are you fixated on this?

Strawberry is 90 minutes or less from 2 million souls and thank god it handles the pressure year in and out. I would also expect it produces more pounds of fish caught per acre than any lake in Utah. It's a treasure!!


----------

