# Minnesville Reservoir



## catch&release (Nov 8, 2007)

What has happend to Minnersville the last couple of years. Do you think this reservoir will make any kind of recovery in the next few years or is it just doomed because they take too much water out of it every year. 

Why is it so bad now, didnt they take just as much water out of it years ago when the fishing was so fantastic. 

Someone please explain.

thanks


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

The problems at Minersville all started in the late 90's when the state engineers decided to repair the dam. AT this time, the reservoir had had about a decade of good water and had sustained good fishing for quite a few years. Once, though, the reservoir was drained, we have not been able to fill it up and sustain levels of high water which the reservoir needs to keep good trout fishing.

In the past several years, we have not filled the reservoir in the spring even once. In order for this reservoir to return to sustained levels of good/excellent fishing, we need to get some good wet years that are able to fill the reservoir in the spring.

I would not, though, overlook it. This past summer's fishing was not as good as the past several because the DWR did not stock fish in Minersville the previous fall when water levels dropped to exceptionally low levels. With good water the trout fishing will return quickly. Also, the reservoir has maintained excellent smallmouth bass...in fact, they are some of the nicest smallmouth in the south. But, no one seems to be fishing for them!


----------



## catch&release (Nov 8, 2007)

Thanks for the report, lets hope we have a very wet winter, alot of rain and snow.
I miss fishing at the "M"


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

Last year the Beaver River drainage had 119% of normal snowpack. The year before it was 101% percent. I am not sure what is going on but it seems like they are taking more water than they should. If Minersville is hurting with above average snowpack imagine what it will be like if we enter a drought cycle again. 
I heard the pawn shop or sporting goods store in Beaver has a petition going to convert Minersville back to bait fishing. Also some local politicians are involved. In the next couple of years Minersville probably won't be artificial flies and lures anyway.


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

here are the observed april,may june reservoir readings for the past bunch of years. full is 23300. last time it filled was in 05, the fantastic snow year. looking down thru the data, there really doesnt seem to be a radical change in the operation. in fact, filling the reservoir seems to be more the exception than the rule. sometimes it helps to look at numbers to put context to memory.

apr	may	jun
-----	-----	-----
7900	6200	4600
10000	7900	6300
9300	6400	4900
8500	7600	5500
9400	7200	7500
15100	10800	7400
10200	9000	11900
19000	17800	18800
23300	25700	26000
22200	18000	13800
19000	15300	10900
16400	11600	8800
16900	23400	21600
22600	16900	11800
13200	11000	8300
14700	11600	6900
9300	7300	5400
8000	9400	15100
17900	21800	22000
20200	23100	22000
24500	21700	17400
19800	16200	14800
23600	24100	24300
21800	24000	22400
24800	20900	17200
23600	23400	21300
25000	19400	15300
22900	21500	19300
20900	16200	12200
11400	8500	6600
11010	8680	6990
11910	9160	6440
13080	15570	20080
16370	13300	9045
12780	14310	23410
23300	18200	13730
14620	17250	18380
24290	23630	24510
24290	18950	10780
11790	4740	0
9100	9500	5000
6000	5200	3300
7100	5500	3600
9700	21800	24100
22200	23300	13700
14700	10100	6800
10800	8100	6500
10700	10700	8000


----------



## catch&release (Nov 8, 2007)

I HATE TO GO OFF ON A FRICKEN RANT BUT WHY CANT THESE IDIOTS LET US HAVE JUST A FEW AFL LAKES WITHOUT THE GOO CHUCKERS GETTING THERE HANDS ON EVERYLAKE. THERE IS JUST A HANDFUL OF THESE LAKES AND IT SEEMS LIKE ITS STILL TOO MUCH FOR THEM TO LEAVE ALONE.


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

From what I understand Kolob Reservoir is going to be open to bait fishing in 2010 because of a petition and Minersville will be opened in 2011 to bait fishing. I guess once they start a petition and approve the removal of one artificials only water it is pretty hard to refuse the other one.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

280Remington said:


> Last year the Beaver River drainage had 119% of normal snowpack. The year before it was 101% percent. I am not sure what is going on but it seems like they are taking more water than they should. If Minersville is hurting with above average snowpack imagine what it will be like if we enter a drought cycle again.
> I heard the pawn shop or sporting goods store in Beaver has a petition going to convert Minersville back to bait fishing. Also some local politicians are involved. In the next couple of years Minersville probably won't be artificial flies and lures anyway.


You have to remember a couple things when looking at these reservoirs....first of all, in order to fill, they have to get a lot more than 100% of a normal water year. Minersville gets so low in the fall that even water years that are slightly above normal are not enough to fill it. Also, the water must come at the right time. If the water comes too early then the reservoir fills too soon and the water users start sucking the water out after the runoff has come. However, if the runoff comes at the same time water users are sucking the water out the water seems to last much longer because the reservoir still has more coming in than going out.

The bottom line is that Minersville will need more than just one or two good years of water in a row...to fill up and get back to great fishing, it needs several consecutive years of good water.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

280Remington said:


> From what I understand Kolob Reservoir is going to be open to bait fishing in 2010 because of a petition and Minersville will be opened in 2011 to bait fishing. I guess once they start a petition and approve the removal of one artificials only water it is pretty hard to refuse the other one.


Kolob will be open to bait fishing for a portion of the year--not all. And, Minersville will remain artificial flies and lures...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Kingfisher said:


> here are the observed april,may june reservoir readings for the past bunch of years. full is 23300. last time it filled was in 05, the fantastic snow year. looking down thru the data, there really doesnt seem to be a radical change in the operation. in fact, filling the reservoir seems to be more the exception than the rule. sometimes it helps to look at numbers to put context to memory.


Exactly...in order for Minersville to be a great fishery like it has been in the past, it must get filled and hold as much water as possible.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

catch&release said:


> I HATE TO GO OFF ON A FRICKEN RANT BUT WHY CANT THESE IDIOTS LET US HAVE JUST A FEW AFL LAKES WITHOUT THE GOO CHUCKERS GETTING THERE HANDS ON EVERYLAKE. THERE IS JUST A HANDFUL OF THESE LAKES AND IT SEEMS LIKE ITS STILL TOO MUCH FOR THEM TO LEAVE ALONE.


Hmmm...i can think of more than just a few. My question is why do we have to restrict anglers? And, if we have to have lakes that are just for artificial flies and lures, why shouldn't we also have lakes that are just for bait? Why can't us bait fishermen have just a few lakes that will keep the friggin' uppity high-falootin' goofy hat wearin' yuppity fly geeks away?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

280Remington said:


> From what I understand Kolob Reservoir is going to be open to bait fishing in 2010 because of a petition and Minersville will be opened in 2011 to bait fishing. I guess once they start a petition and approve the removal of one artificials only water it is pretty hard to refuse the other one.


As was mentioned previously, Kolob will continue to have special regulations -- but bait will be allowed for a few months in the summer. Harvest is still restricted.

The thing with Kolob is that the biology supported the use of bait and some additional harvest. AFL restrictions are actually preventing Kolob from growing true trophy fish like it did in the past. Believe it or not. Kolob get's a ton of natural recruitment of fish, and some mortality of trout in Kolob is desireable. This mortality just was not happening with strict AF&L regulations.

Minersville does not. Harvest is a much bigger deal at Minersville.

Minersville will not be turned back to general regulations. The biology of Minersville simply does not support general regs. Bird predation along with angler harvest wiped out trout populations at Minersville prior to general regs. The same would happen if those AF&L regs were removed. The pawn shop in Beaver can petition all they want -- It's not up to them to change the regs. It still has to pass the Wildlife Board, which I doubt would happen without support from the DWR.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

> Hmmm...i can think of more than just a few. My question is why do we have to restrict anglers? And, if we have to have lakes that are just for artificial flies and lures, why shouldn't we also have lakes that are just for bait? Why can't us bait fishermen have just a few lakes *that will keep the friggin' uppity high-falootin' goofy hat wearin' yuppity fly geeks away?*




Now that made me laugh out loud :mrgreen:


----------



## BrookTroutKid (Oct 10, 2007)

Man I wish minersville would rebound two years ago ice on was the most fun thing i have ever done! Pulling those big ol rainbows sometimes 20 per day was so much fun! Ice off was a blast too!


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

From what I understand is the folks starting the Minersville petition know they can't use biology as a reason to go back to bait fishing. They are going to use social and economic reasons. I guess when the state parks system walked away from Minersville and turned it over to Beaver County it has been losing money and not generating enough cash to cover repairs and maintenance. The local politicians were told if they got 2,000 valid signatures they could get buy in from the RAC and Wildlife Board and wouldn't need a study group set up like they had at Kolob. They can go around or above the DWR on this, or at least that is their plan.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Bait fishing would ruin Minersville in less than a month. Who is going to plant fish in there after they fish it out? State law prevents anyone other than the UDWR from planting fish in there. One of the reasons for the AFL regs. is to drastically reduce the need to plant trout. 

I haven't fished there in a couple of years. I use to work down that way, and get over there once or twice a week. Glad to see that the locals haven't polluted the gene pool.

Fishrmn


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

280Remington said:


> From what I understand is the folks starting the Minersville petition know they can't use biology as a reason to go back to bait fishing. They are going to use social and economic reasons. I guess when the state parks system walked away from Minersville and turned it over to Beaver County it has been losing money and not generating enough cash to cover repairs and maintenance. The local politicians were told if they got 2,000 valid signatures they could get buy in from the RAC and Wildlife Board and wouldn't need a study group set up like they had at Kolob. They can go around or above the DWR on this, or at least that is their plan.


If the local politicians, pawn shop, or any locals think that allowing bait fishing is going to change the revenue generated from the park, they are stupid. The single attraction that lake really has is fishing. The problem with the lake since the county purchased the park from the state is that fishing has not remained good or even stable. The pawn shop and politicians should be petitioning the local water users to keep water in the reservoir because that is the reservoir and campground's problem. Without the water, the fish aren't doing well (duh!). As soon as the reservoir fills and gets a few consecutive years of good water, the fishing and fishermen will return and so will the revenue for the campground. Why the locals don't get that is beyond me....

...if the regulations were changed to allow bait, why would anyone show up if the fish aren't there? I know that when I was in college in the late 90s, the fishing was unreal out there. In fact, there was a 2-week stretch during one summer that I didn't miss a single day of fishing on Minersville and I wasn't alone...ever. But, again, the water was there.


----------



## catch&release (Nov 8, 2007)

Hmmm...i can think of more than just a few. My question is why do we have to restrict anglers? And, if we have to have lakes that are just for artificial flies and lures, why shouldn't we also have lakes that are just for bait? Why can't us bait fishermen have just a few lakes that will keep the friggin' uppity high-falootin' goofy hat wearin' yuppity fly geeks away?



Hmmmm.... Thats one of the best ideas I have heard in a long time. It sounds great to me!


----------



## Jeremy28 (Dec 1, 2007)

concerning Kolob and the return to baitfishing parttime in 2010....I fish there quite a bit and I've never seen a game officer and have seen (every time) people bait fishing. Im not worried about the change because people bait fish there all the time anyways...its a joke.

About Minersville...the only problem people should be worried about is getting that water level up by somehow regulating the water consumption from stupid farmers...thats right "stupid"...they ruined it by being greedy and taking more than they need...I hate them and hope the economy puts them out of business.


----------



## plottrunner (Apr 3, 2008)

Dude are you for real..........you hate the farmers and hope the economy puts them out of business :shock: :shock: :shock: wow


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

> Dude are you for real..........you hate the farmers and hope the economy puts them out of business wow


I don't think he could be for real. DO a little research Jeremy28, that lake is an irrigation lake for the farmers. Just happens to benefit fishermen and hunters, just like many lakes we have. :roll:


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

bowguy is right. The hunting and fishing we enjoy today would be in sad shape without the help of farmers. 

Most western reservoirs, without power generation, are built for farmers and ranchers or city water supplies. Providing water for livestock, crops, and nearby towns precludes recreational uses. The building of reservoirs many times is funded, in part, by a rancher or a group of ranchers. These ranchers, in turn, own parts of the water held in storage.

IMHO farmers are anything but stupid. They eke out a living battling weather, endless bureaucratic red tape, widely fluctuating market prices, equipment failures, etc. Today's farmers and ranchers are lawyers, welders, bankers, hydrologists, veterinarians, computer programmers, ditch diggers, mechanics, biologists, and fortune tellers. Many have college degrees. 

My advice to all is that you enjoy these western reservoirs as much as you can. Sooner or later many will be surrounded by million dollar homes, the only access a boat ramp or two.


----------



## Jeremy28 (Dec 1, 2007)

blah blah blah....someone said "many of the lakes were built for farmers"...shya right, more like all of them. You have to pick one of two sides if we're going to argue about the goings on at Minersville....the fishermans side or the farmers side. I choose the fishermans side. Because no noteworthy lakes were built strictly for fishing I have to voice my opinion and say "as much as i feel for the farmers, when it comes to Minersville...screw the farmers! The only way Minersville will come back for any extended period of time is to have this mindset. I understand that farmers need the water but just how much do they need compared to how much they take? (referring to only Minersville). Minersville is such a good fishery for big fish that its sad to see the lake right at the verge of having some trophy fish in there two years ago to what it is now... here's an idea....don't buy anything grown at or near beaver, utah.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

I can understand your frustration Jeremy, however there are a few lakes in southern Utah that were done as you say, Navajo, Duck Creek, Aspen Mirror, just to name a few. 

Now lakes like Minersville, New Castle and others like that are mostly owned by the irrigation companies with a little cooperation with the DWR they are allowed to put fish in for the fishermen, and the irrigation companies allow a minimal amount of water to remain in the reservoir (something where water is in store for later use).

Now if you could get enough money or enough people with money together to aquire the water rights, land access and build a dam, then by all means go for it and build a lake exclusive to fishing. As of right now I don't think too much of your license fees go into dam building or water rights at Minersville. Those dumb farmers have put in alot of money for that reservoir, now the state has rights to put a park (which they gave up, I think to the county) and put fish in to allow us to fish it, but that is not where the money or water rights came from.


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

wow, where to start on this now... technical discussion on western water law, doctrine of prior appropriation, beneficial use clause, etc... the bottom line is that the water in minersville reservoir has been apprporiated, adjudicated and legally owned by various individuals and irrigation companies who built, operate and maintain the dam for the allocation of water to those specific rights. no where in there is the right to fish. to suggest coopting that water is the same as a statement like: collectively lets take all toyota priuses and put them to use as public transportation because someone thinks that would serve a 'better' purpose. the water in the reservoir is tied to a right to use. end of story. now in later years, many reservoirs were built with fish pools, flood pools, etc with that water right specifically tied to that beneficial purpose, water right held by the state of utah expressly for fish. none of the early reservoirs had such a right. if you want one, there are avenues available by the legal procurement of said water and donating it to the state. so get in line, pony up the bucks and fish. otherwise you are simply taking someones legal property for your own use and that is stealing. - as has been suggested, and if you can get the water right for storage, fishermen are certainly able to propose, engineer and build a reservoir specifiically for fishing. until then, be happy we have as many as we do that we can fish, even if it means that it isnt as 'good' as we 'think' it should be.


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

one more issue - water rights are tied to specific parcels of land and the total amount of water per acre for farming is standard. folks in the uintah basin get the same as those in the beaver area. so no one farmer gets more per acre than another. to decrease the consumptive use out of minersville requires farmers to farm less acreage. in which case, after a period of 'non use time' the right reverts back to the state. the only way to 'save' water is to farm less land. and no, farmers dont intentionally waste water.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

The UDWR owns a conservation pool in Minersville reservoir. They were able to help build the dam and made provisions to keep a certain amount of water in the reservoir. If they didn't, it would be even worse. The water users would drain it *dry* every year. Just so they could get every last drop out of their water rights.

Fishrmn


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

i will need to check if there is a conservation pool on minersville. i wasnt aware that there is one, but i will let you know in a week or two after i get back from out of state. if there is, it was procured later as this dam went in well before the environmental movement and upon its building, there was none.


----------



## Jeremy28 (Dec 1, 2007)

i could give a rats hairy sphinctor hole about all the legal jargon that kingfisher has put up here. My only point is that it is my opinion that the farmers take more water than they need thats all. If we had a really wet winter/spring and the lake was 90% capacity then the farmers would drain it to about the same level at the end of fall as it would've been if it was a really dry winter/spring that started out at 65% capacity. Its a no win situation for the fishermen so screw all the farmers, burn all their fields, vandalize all of their machinery, have a one night stand with their 18 yr old daughters and never call them again, and don't buy any of their products.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

It went in to effect the day the dam was built. The UDWR made a contractual agreement with the Rocky Ford water users.

Fishrmn


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

The reservoir's capacity is 26,500 acre-feet.

There is a 2,000 acre-feet conservation pool, 7.5% of a full lake.

See: http://www.waterquality.utah.gov/waters ... NERSVL.pdf


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

> Jeremy 28 wrote: so screw all the farmers, burn all their fields, vandalize all of their machinery, have a one night stand with their 18 yr old daughters and never call them again, and don't buy any of their products.


 :shock: 
This guy is scary, really? You want to become a criminal and ruin peoples lives and business and go to jail over some stupid fish? If I was running this site I would be turning this guy's URL over to the authorities, this is worse than PETA and as bad as Green Peace. I am serious, this guy is scary. :roll:


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

A warning has been issued. 

Threats are unwanted here and are against Forum rules. Any more and the topic will be locked.


----------



## Jeremy28 (Dec 1, 2007)

k i was kind of out of line for saying that but i was obviously just kidding. One thing i've noticed about this website is that everyone is so sensitive and has to be nice all the time. "scary"..."want to be a criminal and ruin peoples lives" "turn this guy over to the authorities"...you gotta be kiddin me...are you serious? ha ha cmon man lighten up. If I was serious about doing all that stuff don't you think I wouldn't tell everyone about it?...ridiculous.


----------



## sfy2004 (Jun 2, 2008)

unfortunately jeremy, sarcasm does not work in written form. and with that being your second statement of that sort, it kind of makes others wonder if you are serious or not.


----------



## bowgy (Oct 10, 2007)

Glad to hear it Jeremy28. But like has been said, they way it was written didn't sound like you were joking, sounded serious to me. I like to joke around as much as the next guy but without the emoticons it is even harder to tell.

Yes people are nice, or at least decent to each other on this forum most of the time, I think that makes it a great forum and why people like to be here. There are other forums where people like to bag on others and belittle them and to each his own. 

You can have good debates and discussions without threats or belittlement.


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

thanks for looking up the factual info on minerville wyogoob. appreciate it. now we all know there is a 2k con pool owned by dwr for fish. while that isnt a huge amount of water, it is sufficient to hold a brood stock over for reproduction. and dont take offense if i prefer to 'check' things out from a source other than someone stating sometihng on a chat page... there is so much that flys out of these things that may or may not be correct, i simply prefer to confirm and for that, thanks for doing it for me. and to jeremy28, sorry feller, but the legal stuff is the system we have to operate under - its what protects you and me and everyone else who has real property (a water right is real property just like a house) from anyone else who would like to take it from us. and an important fact is that the farmers in beaver are exactly like the farmers anywhere else in the state - trying to make a living for thier families with what they have. they all get the same amount of water per acre of land. so, glad this thread is ending. i hope.


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

Kingfisher, please enlighten us on how much trout "reproduction" there is at Minersville Reservoir.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

Jeremy28 said:


> k i was kind of out of line for saying that but i was obviously just kidding. One thing i've noticed about this website is that everyone is so sensitive and has to be nice all the time. "scary"..."want to be a criminal and ruin peoples lives" "turn this guy over to the authorities"...you gotta be kiddin me...are you serious? ha ha cmon man lighten up. If I was serious about doing all that stuff don't you think I wouldn't tell everyone about it?...ridiculous.


I don't think it is obvious at all since there was no insinuation of a joke at all. Those are pretty serious words. Usually when there is a joke it is followed by one of these :mrgreen: or these :wink: You could even edit it now for those of us who are not very good at reading when people are "obviously just kidding."


----------



## wyogoob (Sep 7, 2007)

Kingfisher said:


> thanks for looking up the factual info on minerville wyogoob. appreciate it. now we all know there is a 2k con pool owned by dwr for fish. while that isnt a huge amount of water, it is sufficient to hold a brood stock over for reproduction. and dont take offense if i prefer to 'check' things out from a source other than someone stating sometihng on a chat page... there is so much that flys out of these things that may or may not be correct, i simply prefer to confirm and for that, thanks for doing it for me. ...........................................................................quote]
> 
> No problem. Also note that a conservation pool is not always "owned" by the DWR.


----------



## fixed blade XC-3 (Sep 11, 2007)

"I don't give a rats hairy sphincter hole" he says. :lol:


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

280Remington said:


> Kingfisher, please enlighten us on how much trout "reproduction" there is at Minersville Reservoir.


hmmm... brood stock, reproduction, and Minersville all in the same sentence? Sounds "fishy" to me...

No brood stock at Minersville. Very little reproduction occurs at Minersville -- what little might occur probably happens in the Beaver River above the reservoir. There is a good number of natural reproduction below the reservoir in the Beaver River.

Smallmouth bass do reproduce naturally in Minersville.

the UDWR does own the C-pool in Minersville. The issue is that when the dam needed repairs a number of years ago the lake was drained dry. The C-pool could not be recovered until the lake filled to a level near full capacity. This didn't happen for about 3 years due to the drought. When the C-pool was recovered, we still had poor water quality -- Minersville is a large surface area, shallow lake. When drawn down to the c-pool for extended periods of time water quality suffers, and so do the fish (winds churn the lake to mud, temps rise, etc).

There certainly are issues with water use on the Beaver River. Regulation of water rights on the Beaver prior to entering the reservoir are largely un-regulated (no meters), and many users use much more than what they own. The biggest issue with water at the reservoir, aside from mother nature providing snow, is not the users below the reservoir -- it's the users above the reservoir...

I'm actually looking forward to next spring at Minersville.


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

Gentlemen, if you will note, i stated that 2000 acre feet of water is decent amount of water for a fisherie, i did not specify any particular specie of fish - merely that 2000 acre feet of water is decent. that is about 653 million, 400,000 gallons of water - a lot more than many lakes and some reservoirs in utah carry over through the winter months that do sustain self sufficient fisheries of many kinds both warm and cold water types. sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

in addition, there are very few if any metered water diversions in utah. a normal diversion is set with a gated weir or parshall flume and monitored by the various water masters or river masters thru the state whose responsibility is to check and set those diversions and report abuse to water rights which can and does enforce disciplinary action. the depletion between beaver and minersville inflow is about 4 to 5 thousand acre feet which means 2/3's or more of the water on the system makes it into the reservoir for use below. agreed that water users take every drop they are entitled to, after all if you have a dollar, do you use 90 cents and throw the dime away? politely disagree that there is rampant abuse of water rights on the beaver system or that anyone above or below the reservoir is more or less to blame nor that farmers are stealing water.


----------



## Jeremy28 (Dec 1, 2007)

how could anyone "steal" any water like you said in the previous post if there is no water meters or ways of regulation in the first place? A water "master" who checks periodically the uses of the farmer(s) water is hardly a regulatory means. Thats the whole problem we're talking about is that, as you agree, the farmers will take as much as they can (referring to the use of the "90 cents and a dollar" reference that you used)....when in actuality, there is no dollar because there is no means of regulation....replacing "dollar" with "infinity" would be more realistic. 

Im not there so i couldn't say for sure if the farmers are actually taking more than they need or if they are, whether its making much of an impact in the first place. All im saying is that to the outside viewer, it seems as if they might be and that it could be making an impact, so until something is set up (which will never happen) to investigate this through and come to some factual conclusions, that noone knows for sure what the real problems are.


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

the outside entity charged with water regulation - making sure that each gets his fair share and no more is the division of water rights. individual farmers do not set the head gates on the main diversions - the device that regulates water flow, this is done by the water master, employed by the state. water theft - as you may imagine is something that is watched collectively by the group because if one takes more than his entitlement, someone else gets shorted and that wont last for long... if on the ditch/canal, farmer c takes more water, then farmer q gets less and the water master will be called to investigate. since the head gates are locked upon setting by the water master, there isnt many ways that one could steal water without notice. cheaters caught get cut off as was the case in 2002 on the bear river system. the division of water rights issued a cease and desist order and then cut electricity to the pump to prevent an individual from taking water. the system in place, while not perfect, works well.


----------



## Jeremy28 (Dec 1, 2007)

Im not disagreeing with you and you seem to know what your talking about, but Im sure there are ways to get more water than needed with the current system of regulation (how often does the master check things out and when he does check things out how does he do so? Are the gates that are set up by the master untamperable? Can a farmer twist this and fiddle with that to get more output to his crops or is it possible for a farmer to build an easily installed/removed contraption that funnels more water through to his crops? Does the master come on a given day periodically to where the farmer will know when to put things back to normal so he doesn't get caught? Even if a farmer takes alot more than needed, how can the farmer down stream know that the farmer(s) up stream is/are taking more than they should and if so which one? It seems to me that it wouldn't be readily noticable just by looking at the stream level whether or not the farmer(s) upstream is/are taking more than they should given the many variables that could be accounted for for a lower stream output.) Below the resorvoir, makes it even more complicated for a farmer to recognize whether or not the farmer(s) upstream is/are taking more than necessary because of the variable day to day rate of water flowing from the resorvoir. You say that the farmer downstream would get shorted if the farmer upstream is taking more than allowed but if the stream still has water in it downstream from the farmer who took more than allowed then wouldn't the farmer downstream from the farmer upstream who took more than allowed still get his full share of water with water to spare for the next farmer downstream? ...(did ya catch that?)...The only sure way to know would be to set up untamperable water meters for each farmer that can be added up together and give some factual figures to compare against moisture levels for a given year and yearly starting/ending resorvoir capacity which would cost a alot of money which i don't think will happen in the foreseeable future.


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

will try to answer some of the questions.
an untamperable meter - will never be invented.
can the farmer twist/turn to get more water. head gates are designed as a blade that moves up and down by turning a 'steering wheel' on top of a large screw. this is locked by various means, chain, lock on a blade to the wheel, etc. there is some movement of this wheel but not more than 1/8 turn. this is offset by the designed lag between movement of the wheel and movement of the blade... in other words you have to turn the wheel a certian amount before the blade moves.
easily install/remove device to steal water - sure, its called a pump but the size of pump necessary to move a significant amount of water in a short time without notice is really big - not worth the risk of getting cut off. i am sure there are many ways devious people can use to steal water, i am not sure there are that many devious farmers out there.
water master schedule - daily rounds and if i know people, likely a regular route, not random. so, yes - one could likely anticipate when he might be there. however, one could not anticipate when your neighbor will come and go - i.e. just like poaching, there are many eyes out there that could catch you but it still happens.
downstream farmers: on many ditches, the stream ends at the final farmer with no return loop. if he gets shorted, the water master will have to investigate.

so, ya - lots of ways to cheat. ya, everyone wants at least 100%, not 90%, ya, hard to tell if someone is getting 105%. nope, not convinced that there is a systemwide or even a large number of farmers who knowingly cheat the system. 

hope this helps with the general understanding of the water rights and delivery system.


----------



## Jeremy28 (Dec 1, 2007)

Like i said before, I have no hands on experience to say anything for sure or factual about the whole topic. It seems to me that the farmers aren't doing anything wrong and if a few are here and there, then im sure its not making much of an impact.

This leads me to the conclusion (and hopefully the conclusion of this thread) that Minersville will never be a reliable trophy fish lake. Even if rainfall/snowpack is extremely high for five years in a row (maybe once in 100 years or so) then the fish will get big like they were a couple years ago but as soon as it has one bad year than the fishing will suck again like it is now until they slowly come back to some degree only to go downhill again. This seems to be how it will always be at Minersville and there is nothing that can be done about it. The fish will never be in a consistent environment that leads to some huge 10+lb fish. Sadly, this is how the scenerio is in southern utah. If you want to have a chance at a huge fish, then you have to drive up north to a lake like Strawberry or Fishlake. Lakes in S.U. that don't have any "water" problems don't produce huge fish anyways for whatever the reason.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have some vandalizing to go do....JUST KIDDING!....GEEZE (take a joke)...  :lol:  :wink:


----------



## Kingfisher (Jul 25, 2008)

well stated jeremy. been nice talkin to ya. i have learned some good things. all the best and hope to see you fishin the ville someday.


----------



## Jeremy28 (Dec 1, 2007)

You too Kingfisher


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

Glad to see Jeremy and Kingfisher ironed things out. This thread has gone full circle, but a number of interesting points have been raised. The fact is when Minersville was converted to special regulations, the main argument the DWR used was it was too costly to continually plant fish that were almost immediately harvested. The DWR got it's wishes and Minersville was converted. Ever since then Minersville has been one issue after another; first it was the cormorants (birds) were feasting on the fish, then dam repairs (twice), then white pelican depredation, and once again extreme low water conditions, poor water quality, and so forth. The DWR in 2009 planted approximately 90,000 fish in Minersville. The only thing that has changed from when it was general regulations to the present is the mortality of the fish. It went from anglers keeping the fish to birds to lethal low water levels. So in the end planting Minersville is still pretty darn costly. 

Also concerning the good water year/bad water year issue, remember in the last two years the Beaver River drainage has been above normal precipitation and look at how bad off Minersville is. We have now entered a drought cycle. PBH mentioned how excited he is to fish Minersville next spring. Is the reason he is excited is because more than likely there won't be any water in it next fall? 

The people of Beaver County that want Minersville reverted back to general regulations have some valid points. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

280Remington said:


> Glad to see Jeremy and Kingfisher ironed things out. This thread has gone full circle, but a number of interesting points have been raised. The fact is when Minersville was converted to special regulations, the main argument the DWR used was it was too costly to continually plant fish that were almost immediately harvested. The DWR got it's wishes and Minersville was converted. Ever since then Minersville has been one issue after another; first it was the cormorants (birds) were feasting on the fish, then dam repairs (twice), then white pelican depredation, and once again extreme low water conditions, poor water quality, and so forth. The DWR in 2009 planted approximately 90,000 fish in Minersville. The only thing that has changed from when it was general regulations to the present is the mortality of the fish. It went from anglers keeping the fish to birds to lethal low water levels. So in the end planting Minersville is still pretty darn costly.
> 
> Also concerning the good water year/bad water year issue, remember in the last two years the Beaver River drainage has been above normal precipitation and look at how bad off Minersville is. We have now entered a drought cycle. PBH mentioned how excited he is to fish Minersville next spring. Is the reason he is excited is because more than likely there won't be any water in it next fall?
> 
> The people of Beaver County that want Minersville reverted back to general regulations have some valid points. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.


Remington280, you are wrong on a number of points:
1) The DWR changed the regulations at Minersville to restrictive C&R type regulations because of a combination of factors but mostly because cormorants were virtually eating all of the trout stocked. http://wildlife.utah.gov/blueribbon/4-step_plan.pdf
From the document: "A new management plan was put into effect in 1991 that included restricted angling methods and harvest regulations to avoid over-harvest, and changing time of stocking, size of fish stocked, and species stocked to avoid bird migrations and predation, and at the same time increse predation on Utah chubs. Besides rainbow trout, Bear Lake cutthroat trout and smallmouth bass were added to the reservoir. As a result, catch-and-release fishing was used to reduce over-harvest and a trophy fishery was produced throughout most of the 1990s. Overall, the plan was successful in maintaining a sport fishery even without additional rotenone treatments. The catch in annual gill net surveys was generally increased from under 10 trout per net-night to over 20. Although drought conditions and reconstruction of the dam caused the reservoir to be drained in recent years, plans are to re-establish this fishery and Blue Ribbon status when adequate water levels are restored."

2) Water conditions in the Beaver River drainage appear to have been good; however, the reservoir has NOT filled and run-off has come too soon to benefit trout. In order for Minersville to remain a viable trout fishery, the reservoir must be filled and water levels need to remain stable for multiple years. Since the dam was last repaired, the reservoir was only filled one time. "The fishery rebounded after the drought in 2005, but lower water levels and poor water clarity in 2007 and 2008 led to a decline in fish condition. Better water levels mean that the trout fishery should rebound again. Anglers have caught a lot of 18- to 20-inch fish in recent years." Gill net surveys in the fall of 2008 showed a lot of big trout that were stressed because of low water conditions and poor water quality. For this reason, few trout were stocked in the fall of 2008. In the spring of 2009, gill net samples showed a significantly lower population of trout--due to two factors: 1) poor water quality in the fall and 2) no stocking. The fishing season in 2009 has thus been poor. However, with the number of trout stocked in 2009, fishing will rebound quickly if the water returns.

3) Despite the relatively low number of trout on poor water years, the number of trout per gill net night is still higher than prior to restrictive regulations. The plan is working...

4) PBH is excited to fish Minersville this upcoming year for two reasons: 1) He knows, as I do, that trout fishing could be excellent. If the stocked trout made it through the low water conditions of this past summer, high numbers of trout will again be present this spring. PBH also knows that Minersville grows trout quickly and big fish are still being caught in the reservoir now. 2) What PBH really finds exciting at Minersville, though, isn't the trout. "Biologists found smallmouth bass weighing up to three pounds in a fall 2008 survey, which were some of the fattest bass they had ever seen." The smallmouth bass fishery at Minersville is really exploding and their are some really big smallmouth out there to be caught.

5) The people in Beaver who want the regulations have NO valid points. History has proven to us that when trout are present at the reservoir it gets fished and the park has customers, and when the reservoir has low numbers of trout present, the park remains empty. Prior to the restrictive regulations, Minersville reservoir was treated "Expensive chemical treatments with rotenone were repeatedly conducted to temporarily solve problems and re-establish a trout fishery. This proved to be ineffective because good fishing only lasted about three years, and treatments were needed at least every five years. The new management plan successfully produced good fishing throughout the 1990s without the need for rotenone treatments." So, the park kept full immediately following rotenone treatments when fishing was good, and eventually business slowed as fishing deteriorated.

Returning Minersville reservoir to general regulations will only accomplish one thing...poor fishing and continued poor park use. The reason is simple: the rotenone treatments that maintained a fishery at Minersville are too expensive to continue and the DWR does not have the means to continue them. So, as chub numbers increase and the fishery declines, so will the parks use. If Beaver really wants that park to be used, they should work harder to keep water in the reservoir. Because the simple truth is that fish need water and the more fish the reservoir has, the more use the park will get!
http://wildlife.utah.gov/hotspots/detai ... 1154783391

For a good explanation and documentation of birds preying on trout, read the study done on Southern Utah reservoirs:
https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/ojs/index.php/w ... w/518/1463
This study also explains the reasons for the regulation changes at Minersville in 1991.


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

wyoming2utah, in your #1 paragraph you repeat the exact same thing as what I said. Thanks for making my argument for me. I said Minersville was changed to restrictive regs because of angler over-harvest and bird predation. Thankfully you were good enough at internet research and cut and pasting to validate what I wrote. 

In regards the argument you make about the value and future potential of Minersville, I see a lot of "ifs" and "coulds" in your sentences.
Yes, Minersville COULD be a decent fishery IF the water gods cooperate. But history has shown since 1991 that Minersville has had continual problems with water quality, even when precipation is above normal. 

Until animals start grouping together in pairs and a guy named Noah shows up with an ark, I seriously doubt Minersville will ever sustain itself as a trophy trout destination for more than a year or two at a time. Minersville is simply too low in elevation and much too dependent on abnormally high water years to sustain itself over the long run as a quality trout fishery. 

You are right it does have the potential to be a good smallmouth fishery. That is the direction the folks in Beaver County are petitioning. A reversal of the trout fishing special regulations and an increased emphasis on the smallmouth bass fishery is their proposal. A win-win for all.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

280Remington said:


> Glad to see Jeremy and Kingfisher ironed things out. This thread has gone full circle, but a number of interesting points have been raised. The fact is when Minersville was converted to special regulations, the main argument the DWR used was it was too costly to continually plant fish that were almost immediately harvested. The DWR got it's wishes and Minersville was converted. Ever since then Minersville has been one issue after another; first it was the cormorants (birds) were feasting on the fish, then dam repairs (twice), then white pelican depredation, and once again extreme low water conditions, poor water quality, and so forth.


Remington280, your first paragraph--reprinted above--says that the DWR first blamed problems at Minersville on overharvest. So, they changed the regulations to fix that. Then, they blamed it on cormorants, then dam repairs, then pelican predation. But, again, that is NOT true. The regulations were changed after the cormorant study was completed and the DWR saw the impact cormorants were having on trout. When regulations changed in 1991 the DWR looked at the reason for bad fishing at Minersville to be primarily a predation problem with birds eating trout and the remaining trout being taken from the lake. Since the regulations have changed, fishing at Minersville has been BETTER than prior to changes...even in the bad years, like this past one. The DWR has NEVER made any claim as to poor fishing being due to white pelican predation of trout...that is false. The DWR is saying that trout numbers are better in bad years now than what they were prior to regulation changes. In fact, the information/links I posted show that the number of trout per net night at Minersville immediately prior to the regulation changes was 3 fish per net....since the regulation changes, numbers have NEVER been that low even in the worst years!

You are right, though, there are a lot of "ifs" and "coulds" in my statement. But, they are very relative. In comparison to what Minersville was prior to the regulation change, it is already a great trout fishery. IN terms of what its potential is, it is below that level right now. But, that doesn't matter....the bottom line is that the trout population at Minersville has been higher since the regulation change that it was prior to the change. And, if we change back to open regulations, we will lose any trout fishing in the reservoir. As for managing it as a smallmouth fishery, well, it is already being done....and has been ever since the regulations were originally changed.

You also said:


280Remington said:


> Until animals start grouping together in pairs and a guy named Noah shows up with an ark, I seriously doubt Minersville will ever sustain itself as a trophy trout destination for more than a year or two at a time. Minersville is simply too low in elevation and much too dependent on abnormally high water years to sustain itself over the long run as a quality trout fishery.


However, we already know that to be untrue because the reservoir sustained an excellent trout fishery throughout almost the whole last decade...1991-1999! Also, Minersville doesn't need "abnormally high water years to sustain itself"...Minersville needs a good water year to fill the reservoir and normal years afterwards. The problem has been that the reservoir has only filled once since 2000....ONCE! Again, the timing of when the water comes is almost as important as how much comes. If the water comes too early, the reservoir is drawn down to low by fall...yet, if it comes late, the reservoir remains high enough to sustain healthy trout. IN other words, a smaller runoff later in the spring or a lower water year is actually more beneficial than a normal water year when runoff comes early in the spring.

The truth is that without the restrictive regulations at Minersville the trout fishing will be lost because the DWR will not continue to pay top dollar for rotenone treatments to sustain it. How is that a win/win for fishermen and park owners? Without the regulations we lose the fish! If you combine open regulations with low water, you will not have a trout fishery at all....that is a shame! Why go back to a plan that was worse?


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

wyoming2utah, you seem to forget that the period from 2000-2009 is ten years! That is ten summers. During that period the reservoir has been drained dry, emergency salvage limits have been put in place, etc. Also remember the last two winters HAVE been above normal precipitation in the Beaver River drainage. The last half of the decade we have been in a wet cycle and Minersville did not fill and continued to experience fatally low water levels. My point is the wet cycle appears to be over, this past November was one of the driest on record. Climatologists are now saying Utah will be entering another dry cycle. 

This spells doom for Minersville, if it couldn't fill during the recent wet winters, how on earth is it going to fill during a drought cycle? Let's agree to suspend this argument until the end of August, 2010. Let's both come on here and discuss the current state of Minersville Reservoir at the end of the 2010 summer.


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

PBH said:


> It still has to pass the Wildlife Board, which I doubt would happen without support from the DWR.


[/quote]

I love the above quote. PBH, care to explain how much influence the DWR had on the Wildlife Board last week (5 day deer hunt)????


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

280Remington said:


> wyoming2utah, you seem to forget that the period from 2000-2009 is ten years! That is ten summers. During that period the reservoir has been drained dry, emergency salvage limits have been put in place, etc. Also remember the last two winters HAVE been above normal precipitation in the Beaver River drainage. The last half of the decade we have been in a wet cycle and Minersville did not fill and continued to experience fatally low water levels. My point is the wet cycle appears to be over, this past November was one of the driest on record. Climatologists are now saying Utah will be entering another dry cycle.
> 
> This spells doom for Minersville, if it couldn't fill during the recent wet winters, how on earth is it going to fill during a drought cycle? Let's agree to suspend this argument until the end of August, 2010. Let's both come on here and discuss the current state of Minersville Reservoir at the end of the 2010 summer.


1) Despite being drained to repair the dam, fishing was still BETTER than whan it was prior to c&R regulations as evidenced by gill net studies--higher trout per net!
2) In the past ten years, Minersville still had 3 years (2006-2008) of excellent trout fishing despite the reservoir being drained twice in those ten years. That is more excellent trout fishing than Minersville ever saw prior to regulations being changed.
3) Average water or above average water years really don't mean much at Minersville unless that water comes later rather than earlier...I have seen this many times in my lifetime. IF the water comes late, even if it is lower than normal, the fish do fine.
3) Again, why go back to a management plan--open regulations--that was worse?

You sound like Doug Mckenzie in Strange Brew when he loses his breaks in his van..."No sense in steering now!" Just because climatologists are predicting this or that doesn't mean we shouldn't continue to manage for trout as best we can...Doug Mckenzie: "shut up! You steer this thing!"


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

280Remington said:


> Also remember the last two winters HAVE been above normal precipitation in the Beaver River drainage.


Let's look at the stats:
Year  April Storage Streamflow at Reservoir(May)
1991 11.4% 27.3 1000-AF
1992 11.0% 23.8
1993 11.9% 43.3
1994 13.1% 25.4
1995 16.4% 58.0
1996 12.8 25.5
1997 23.3 54.1
1998 14.6 54.1
1999 24.3 45.0
2000 24.3 35.8
2001 11.8 28.4
2002 9.1 14.2
2003 6 20.8
2004 7.1 18.7
2005 9.7  64.1
2006 22.2 38.7
2007 14.7 22.5
2008 8.1 29.1
2009 10.7 38.7

The worst years in the last 19 were 2002, 2003, 2004, and 2007. 2008 was below average and 2009 was above average. Not coincidentally, the worst fishing in that same span was also following those years. The reservoir was not allowed to fill 2008 due to the rebuilding of the dam spillway. Also, 2009 would have been a good fishing year at Minersville IF the DWR had stocked similar numbers of trout in 2008 as they had other years and the reservoir were allowed to fill more than what it were allowed.

In my opinion, the two biggest obstacles keeping the reservoir from being an excellent rainbow trout/trout fishery in the past 9 years has been the repair of the dam and the rebuilding of the dam spillway...both of which kept water managers from filling the reservoir to maximum levels. With those two obstacles out of the way, water levels will return to standards more conducive to raising good numbers of trout.


----------



## Porky (Mar 12, 2009)

Does the DWR have any plans to stock the "ville", "M", 'ol Miner or whatevertheheck you want to call it with Tiger Trout? That'd get them angler numbers up fer sure & I'm **** purt sure that there State Park would fill more often too.


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

They planted tigers last year. I haven't heard much about them there, but then I haven't been down there in almost 2 years either.

Fishrmn


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

The tiger trout stocked in Minersville were "extras". In other words, they were extra fish produced by the hatcheries that were not slated to be stocked anywhere. Tiger trout have been stocked in other mid-level reservoirs with very little or poor return in the creel. I would suspect that most of those tigers stocked will never be heard of again...


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

I had higher hopes for the tigers. I figgered they'd tolerate the water conditions better than the Bear Lake cutthroats and actually eat some of the chubs. If they are eating chubs, the fly fishermen aren't gonna see very many of them, but if you're imitating chubs.......

Fishrmn


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Interestingly, the latest gill net studies are showing that the Bear Lake cutts are tolerating the water levels better than rainbows. The catch of cutthroat trout during the 2009 trend netting was not significantly lower than in recent years. In addition, cutthroat condition was higher than that of rainbows, indicating that cutthroat may have faired better in feeding during the extended period of poor water quality. The biggest problem with recent gill net studies, though, is the number of chubs caught. 1,037 Utah chubs (97 % total catch) were caught, for a catch rate of 173 fish per net-night. This rate was the highest recorded since 1983. Utah chubs made up 78 % of the total biomass caught, the highest proportion seen since 2000. These high numbers are undoubtedly a result of low water conditions which chubs tolerate much better than trout. In fact, the reservoir was first drained in 1999, and in 2000, the chub biomass climbed significantly. The low water conditions have really favored chubs....

...I, too, hope that the tiger trout fare well and end up munching on chubs. But, I am not too optimistic. 20,000 tiger trout were stocked in Piute in 2006, yet I heard of nobody ever catching them. To me, Piute and Minersville are very similar....


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

I'm still hopin' for a couple of thousand wipers for Minersville. They would actually eat chubs, and not just the young of the year. They would put a dent in that 97% biomass of chubs.

Fishrmn


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I don't believe that wipers are necessary. Personally, I think that the smallmouth bass will thrive in minersville with the chubs. The bonneville cutts will utilize the chubs as well.

It will be interesting to see what kind of young-of-the-year we find with chubs in the next couple years. The smallies should be to the point in Minersville where they can keep the chubs somewhat in check, along with some predation by cutthroat. The exciting thing with all of this, is that there are going to be some big trout in Minersville this coming summer. Complain about management all you want -- limited numbers of fish + lots of forage = big fish. There is at least 1 angler (me) that can't wait for spring at Minersville...


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Smallies haven't, can't, and won't eat the chubs. They're too busy eating the crawdads. Fish with a minnow imitation, and you'll catch trout. Fish with a crawdad imitation and you'll catch smallies.

Fsihrmn


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> Fish with a minnow imitation, and you'll catch trout. Fish with a crawdad imitation and you'll catch smallies.
> 
> Fsihrmn


You're telling me that there is a difference??? Hmmm, I don't think that the smallmouth know about this difference.

FWIW -- the largest smallmouth I've ever caught came from Minersville. It was caught on a minnow imitation on my fly rod in the spring. Fish can be very "reactive" to stimuli. You never know what they'll hit, or why they hit it. The best baits are not always something the fish wants to eat.

smallies primary forage is, in fact, crayfish. However, given the opportunity they will prey upon chubs - especially young of the year. They have never been able to "eliminate" the chubs in Minersville, but history has shown that they certainly do help in keeping the chubs under some sort of control.

Prior to special regulations at Minersville, and the introduction of smallmouth bass, chubs were a major problem at the reservoir. Rotenone treatments were never 100% successful in removing the chubs. however, since the inception of special regulations and smallmouth bass Minersville has never had another rotenone treatment to remove chubs. Why is this? Is it due to the trout or the bass or some combination of the two?


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> The biggest problem with recent gill net studies, though, is the number of chubs caught. 1,037 Utah chubs (97 % total catch) were caught, for a catch rate of 173 fish per net-night. This rate was the highest recorded since 1983. Utah chubs made up 78 % of the total biomass caught, the highest proportion seen since 2000.


And that's just the ones big enough to get caught in a gill net. There are untold thousands that are too small to be caught with gill nets.

Yep! Them smallies are doing their job. Keepin' the chubs in check. Careful Heppy, you'll start sounding like Cliff. I don't want smallmouths eliminated from Minersville. I would just like to see something that would actually reduce the number of chubs. Smallies ain't doin' it. Wipers would.

Fishrmn


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Fishrmn said:


> I would just like to see something that would actually reduce the number of chubs. Smallies ain't doin' it.


Smallies aren't doing it...yet. But, if history repeats itself, they will. The numbers of chubs in gill nets peaked in 1996. At that same time, smallmouth were just starting to get a strong population and by 1998 chub numbers in gill nets had dramatically declined. So, in my opinion, the combination of adult cutts and smallmouth bass were undoubtedly having a negative impact on chub numbers. Also, stomach samples taken from smallmouth on shocking surveys revealed that smallmouth do, in fact, utilize the chubs as a forage fish.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I'm not sure where some of my posts are going, but they aren't showing up here in the thread...


Fishrmn -- chub numbers are currently high. Reason? remember that the dam was rebuilt, lake drained, poor water years to follow, water levels didn't rise high enough to reclaim C-pool, lake level dropped to drastic levels, trout lost, smallmouth bass lost. C-pool reclaimed, lake level still does not fill to full capacity, water levels drop to minimum c-pool for extended period of time, water quality suffers, trout suffer, smallies reintroduced but have not taken stron hold yet. During all this time, chubs have thrived.

The chubs had a head start. Give the smallies some time. They'll take hold and thrive (are currently thriving). They've always done a decent job with chubs at Minersville, and I feel confident that they will this time as well.


i love wipers. My fear with wipers is their popularity. If the DWR puts them in Minersville I fear that anglers will want the DWR to continue their use at Minersville. I would hate to see the wipers replace the trout at Minersville.




PBH like mojos, and dropshots whne fish fore smallies on chubs with trout at angling with photo and rlease please.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

wyoming2utah said:


> PBH is excited to fish Minersville this upcoming year for two reasons: 1) He knows, as I do, that trout fishing could be excellent. If the stocked trout made it through the low water conditions of this past summer, high numbers of trout will again be present this spring. PBH also knows that Minersville grows trout quickly and big fish are still being caught in the reservoir now. 2) What PBH really finds exciting at Minersville, though, isn't the trout. "Biologists found smallmouth bass weighing up to three pounds in a fall 2008 survey, which were some of the fattest bass they had ever seen." The smallmouth bass fishery at Minersville is really exploding and their are some really big smallmouth out there to be caught.


Spring gillnetting at Minersville has been completed....as PBH expected, trout fishing at Minersville looks very promising this year---good numbers of 12-14 inch trout were found with a surprising number of 18-21 inch trout as well. Also, those big smallmouth are doing some good things...the number of chubs seems to have declined and is not alarming!


----------



## Jeremy28 (Dec 1, 2007)

were you there or did you just hear about the sizes seen in the nets? Im just curious if they netted any 23+inchers


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

No, I wasn't there. I just emailed some guys who were there and received information/pictures back. I don't think anything over 23 inches was netted.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

What are the top end sizes on the minersville smallies? Might have to get back down there. It has been about 8-9 yrs.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

IN the fall of 2008, the biggest smallies were reaching 3 pounds (the one in the pic is about 2). Spring gill netting is not targeting smallmouth, so very few were netted. Usually, they do their sampling for smallmouth with an electrofishing boat during the summer or fall...I know my brother told me that last summer's smallmouth were the fattest he has ever seen and among the biggest (including those he had shocked and seen caught at Jordanelle)! Personally, I caught a smallmouth from Minersville in about 1996 or 1997 that was just over 20 inches and probably 5 pounds...I am guessing we are approaching fish of that size now.


----------

