# Scofield Proposal



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

Just wanted to throw this out there to see what everyone thinks about the Scofield proposal that has been suggested to help control the ever increasing chub population. One time while fishing up there this year, I was throwing dry flies to rising fish on the north end and caught nothing but 6-8" chubs (that went on to be fertilizer for the surrounding sage brush). I personally love the idea of the slot for tigers and cutts. It has been shown biologically that the cutts are more predatory between 15-22" which is why they have the current slot on Strawberry. Does anyone know if the same can be said about tigers? I think tigers would be a better option as a tool to reduce chub numbers. From my experience on Scofield, they tend to be more active, more aggresive, and love the BIG bugs I throw at them more so than the cutts, meaning they will likely feed more on the bigger chubs. The DWR needs to increase the numbers of tigers planted into Scofield. What about a slot limit on rainbows? Rainbows eat fish too, as a testament to why rapalas and other lures are so effective on Scofield. Catch and cook fishers may not like the idea, but whatever it takes from losing this awesome water to the chubs I whole heartedly support. 

I also like the idea of reducing the limit back down to four. I have noticed the size of fish I catch drop dramatically over the last couple years. I feel that a lot of fish are being taken and thrown into freezers and not consumed. If any of those fisherman are like other people I know, they end up sitting there in the freezer until they are no longer good and end up in the garden as fertilizer. Four fish per person is more than enough to feed a family and then some. Then when you run out, you have an excuse to go back up. My wife loves to eat fish, but I only keep one or two so I can be sure that the next time she gets a craving, I have an excuse to get out.


----------



## takemefishin (Sep 13, 2007)

we need to find a way to make these invading fish more tasty then people wouldnt complain so much about these fish.


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

takemefishin said:


> we need to find a way to make these invading fish more tasty then people wouldnt complain so much about these fish.


Good idea, maybe sprinkle the lake with some Zatt's once a month or so...


----------



## americanforkdude (Sep 13, 2007)

I'm tired of the slot restriction on strawberry. If i want to harvest fish, scofield is kind of my go to for trout. I hate to see a slot get put on it. Once there is a chub problem, there is always going to be a chub problem. Sad but true. There's no quick fix.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

True, there is no quick fix, but it is better than letting it get out of control to the point of having to poison it and losing it for a few years. Scofield has always had chubs in it, it has been the last couple years that they have really started to multiply. There will be slot limits and limit reductions, what exactly and for how long is the question. Strawberry is a perfect example of how effective slot limits can reduce chubs. I stopped fishing it when the rainbows got neglected. I may hit it next year now that the DWR is focusing more on the bows, I don't like the cutts but they definitely serve a purpose.


----------



## copper (Sep 11, 2008)

Well, Utah law states you must eat your fish for your limit to be released. Thus if people have fish in the freezer, that counts against their limit. And they should only be able to harvest that which they have not already eaten. It also says you cannot use game fish as fertilizer, so if they throw those fish out after they go bad, that is also in violation of the law.

I think you should give DWR a little more credit on this one. I am not so sure it is so simple to manage a fishery. I think they are trying to balance the lake upon several factors, some of which we are probably unaware and still keep the fishing fun for everyone. Since they are urging harvesting of the trout I think I will trust them with that being best for the lake weighed upon several factors. Including enticing anglers to spend the money to get to the lake, which allows those local businesses to keep their doors opened. 

If fishing pressure falls, most likely you will get bigger trout and less chub, but perhaps at the cost of the local Scofield economy, which already looks like it is already hurting enough.

I know this angler avoids strawberry because of the restrictions, the only reason I will go is the lure of catching the big one. If the same restrictions are in place at scofield, it will be a ghost town.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

> If fishing pressure falls, most likely you will get bigger trout and less chub, but perhaps at the cost of the local Scofield economy, which already looks like it is already hurting enough.
> 
> I know this angler avoids strawberry because of the restrictions, the only reason I will go is the lure of catching the big one. If the same restrictions are in place at scofield, it will be a ghost town.


If you go to Strawberry, you will notice there isn't a shortage of anglers regardless of the slot, even with the primary fish being the cutt. Scofield is different because the primary fish being caught is the rainbow and there currently isn't any proposal to instigate a slot limit on the bows. If you want to see the city of Scofield turn into a ghost town, let the chubs take over so the resevoir has to be poisoned. Slot limits on the tigers and cutts along with increased planting of 8-10" trout (tigers, cutts, adn bows) is about the only option. That way there will be enough predatory fish to feast on the chubs that won't be feeding on the planters because of their size (just like what has been done at Strawberry).


----------



## copper (Sep 11, 2008)

Well strawberry is a different lake. It's deeper, it's larger, etc. It also isn't 90% privately owned by a bunch of elitist pricks like in scofield.

So again, I will trust the DWR to know exactly what they are doing. I'm sure they feel some sort of indebtedness to the scofield residents for killing their lake previously. Their reason for the increased limits is to increase angler pressure. They know what they are doing, I don't. If you have a degree in wildlife management, perhaps you should share. I don't thus I will trust the people who get paid to do so.

Also fish need food, chub, kill all the chub by decreasing limits and perhaps there will be not food for those fish. There is more into managing a lake then you make it out to be. There is a fine balance, I think they are trying to maintain it and I will not second guess their decisions.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

I had no idea that Scofield is 90% private, I know a few of the shorelines are private, but most have sportsmans accesses. I never claimed to be a wildlife biologist, but considering what has been accomplished at Strawberry, slot limits work for certain species. Scofield is the only water in Utah with an 8 fish limit, the standard limit is 4 which is being proposed for 2009 on Scofield. One of the reasons the limit was raised was because there was fear of a fish die off with the dam repairs. Scofield ceartainly does not have a shortage of food, if anything there is an over abundance. I am not suggesting anything that hasn't already been suggested by the DWR (those who get paid to make such decisions). They suggest lowering the limit of fish and instigating a slot limit on tigers and cutts, plain and simple. So obviously the true biologists have thought this through and that is their conclusion. The purpose of this post was to get others thoughts on this proposal and I thank for your thoughts copper, I suggest if anyone has anything they would like to change or add to the proposal should attend the upcoming RACs. I for one am all in favor of what is being proposed, the only thing I would add is a significant increase in the planting of tigers (if it is biologically feasable of course).


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

I can't vote since my option isn't available.

Scofield is a great place to get some food. A slot limit would kill that.

I wouldn't mind moving the limit back to four though. I can't imagine taking 8 fish home. I'd never eat all of them and I really like eating trout. Anyone who takes home 8 fish from Scofield had better have a good sized family to feed, full of horrible fishermen. :lol:


----------



## FLYFSHR (Apr 16, 2008)

I believe originally they made the limit to 8 to increase the popularity of Scofield and it has worked. There are more angling hours now than past years.
With that being said, I think if they do not apply a slot limit the chubs will get out of control.
Scofield is gonna turn into another berry. There is no way of getting rid of the chubs without costing a billion dollars even IF that works. So the next best thing is to "control" the chubs.
By putting a slot limit, it helps the fish get to a sizeable nature to where they become more predatory towards chubs. Of course they probably will consume smaller fish besides chubs but that is a side effect that we'd have to deal with. More chubs would probably get eaten than trout.
Strawberry is a perfect example of the control. The chub population has leveled off to even smaller numbers than previous years.
I think a slot limit on ALL fish would be best not only for chub control but for fisherman also.
It seems as if alot of people cannot differentiate one fish from another so make it simple for them with a number.
My vote goes to a slot on all fish.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

I don't see why anyone can be too upset with the proposal to put a slot limit on the tigers and cutts. The rainbows will still be under general regulations and a 4 fish limit. There will be plenty available for those who desire to harvest fish. The fishery for the cutts and tigers will be fantastic with regs. to protect them and anglers that are more interested in "trophy" or "quality" fishing will have a blast. There are not tackle restrictions being suggested, so bait anglers do not need to stay away. Finally, it IS an proven fact that when the chubs reach a certain point, the rainbow trout fishery will collapse and the lake will either need to be treated (again) or will fish poorly. Either result would be bad for business for those Scofield residents, (and those who like to fish Scofield). The lesson of Strawberry is that slots can work to control chubs and actually make chubs an asset in feeding fish allowed to become large enough. I hope this plan proposed by our BIOLOGISTS will be approved by the "higher-ups".


----------



## El Matador (Dec 21, 2007)

If I had to make the regulations, using my limited knowledge, I would first restore the limit to 4 fish per day. Then, I would close the reservoir to the possession of tiger trout. Since tigers are sterile hybrids their numbers could be controlled quite easily. And they are more likely to eat chubs, I believe, than are the cutts. Another reason I like this idea is because tigers are not caught as often on bait that is swallowed. Most of them could be released easily without imposing fly/lure regulations. And finally, catch and release grows big fish that are fun to catch. We have zero lakes in Utah that can grow big fish and have catch and release regulations.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

El Matador has some some very good points. God forbid that Utah has ONE reservoir that has catch and release and/or artificial fly and lure only restrictions. I would like to see straight browns put into Scofield. Browns grow larger than Tigers and juvenille recruitment would be minimal at best (as is usually the case in ALL Utah stillwaters) Bigger fish will eat will eat more chubs. For the cost of gas you can go somewhere much closer and keep some fish for dinner.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

Flyguy7/El Matador, I like it but I doubt it will ever happen, especially with a resevoir like Scofield. I like El Matadors idea of making Tigers a mandatory catch and release. I have heard of people catching the occasional brown out of Scofield, never cought one myself, but I wouldn't mind seeing more in there. If people complain about some of the petty regulations we have here in Utah, they ought to look at Idaho. Each individual water up there has its own specific regualtions with many waters that are catch & release, one fish over 20", artificial flies and lures, or barbless. The catch and cook folks here in Utah have it pretty good.


----------



## Jacksonman (Jan 16, 2008)

First off, I don't like eating trout and I love catching really large trout, especially during the ice season. Scofield is my go to place November and December and I would hate to see it crash, especially with the size the Tigers are getting. So naturally, I vote for a complete slot of all fish 15-22 inches and a limit of 4 outside the slot. Taking home four 13-14.5" trout is plenty to eat, and I would bet with a slot, 22"+ fish would become common. I would also like to see browns planted into Scofield. A slot should at a minimum be placed on Tigers and Cutts with 1 over 22" and the limit reduced to four. 

If people really want to eat trout (or Salmon as it tastes better than trout most would say) it really isn't that expensive to buy at the store, if you figure the cost of gas and gear. I am all about the right to keep a few fish to eat, but I despise, rather hate, when fishermen complain about every and all slot/catch and release regulations because they want to bring home tons of fish, even at the detriment of a fishing water. Strawberry is an absolutely amazing fishery and most people go for the fishing. Go figure - going fishing to go fishing. If you really must eat fish, there are several stores that offer a huge variety and for much cheaper than the cost of gas, gear and the time spent. I too keep fish, but only a few and would never consider eating one's fish a priority to the overall fishing quality of a lake.

What do people do with 8 fish, especially when there are 5 fishermen and they each keep 8 fish? I cringe when I see reports and there are 20 dead fish on a stringer, especially when there are several really large ones on the stringer. I know it is legal, but not everything legal is right or good for the overall future quality of a body of water.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

Well said Jacksonman.


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

Jacksonman said:


> If people really want to eat trout (or Salmon as it tastes better than trout most would say) it really isn't that expensive to buy at the store, if you figure the cost of gas and gear.


YUCK! Store trout are farm raised (usually the salmon too) and nowhere near fresh. I would NEVER buy one of those leathery trout from the market. Salmon, only because I can't seem to catch any here in Utah.

I like to eat a trout or two every week for the health benefits and I enjoy the flavor, usually. Besides that, it's a great way to connect with your environment when you can provide yourself a meal from Nature (even fish that were born in a hatchery, but grown in a lake). One of the reasons that Scofield is popular is because people can go to a nice area and get some fish to bring home. Forget the cost of gas and gear. If that was an issue, people wouldn't fish at all, these days.

I agree that the 8 fish limit is too much and I too will cringe when I see people taking more than enough just because they can. Some people are just like that though. Ignorance is a tough one to fix.

I can sort of see the AFL crowd's gripe, but I don't think restricting Scofield is the answer.

Catch and release doesn't always equal bigger fish either. What happens when there's not enough food to go around? (Rhetorical)

I don't like the idea of restrictions on tigers, either. They seem to be the new rainbow for the DWR and they're easier to control. Perfect for put and take.

Just my opinion.


----------



## FLYFSHR (Apr 16, 2008)

El Matador said:


> We have zero lakes in Utah that can grow big fish and have catch and release regulations.


Wouldn't catch and release regulations also be part of slot limits? If a fish is within a slot limit, it automatically becomes catch and release? I can think of quite a few lakes in Utah that grows big fish.



flyguy7 said:


> God forbid that Utah has ONE reservoir that has catch and release and/or artificial fly and lure only restrictions.


You can't be serious are you?


----------



## Huge29 (Sep 17, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> El Matador has some some very good points. God forbid that Utah has ONE reservoir that has catch and release and/or artificial fly and lure only restrictions.


I thought bait only would be a better idea, it would keep the hot air of the flyfishermen from contributing so much to the global warming in the higher elevations. :wink:


----------



## Gameface (Jun 7, 2008)

I just want to chime in with what LOAH said. Why in the world would anyone value not-so-fresh fish bought at the store over a fish that you catch, clean, cook and consume all in less than 8hrs?


----------



## Jacksonman (Jan 16, 2008)

Gameface said:


> I just want to chime in with what LOAH said. Why in the world would anyone value not-so-fresh fish bought at the store over a fish that you catch, clean, cook and consume all in less than 8hrs?


I for one will agree that there is something special about eating what you catch, and the taste is usually better. My comments are directed to those that seem to fish mostly to bring home as much meat as possible, compared to those who fish mostly for the pleasure of fishing who take fish home on occasion and in moderation. If you really want 5 to 10 to 20 lbs. of fish, if you really LOVE eating fish every day, you can always buy them from the store - so son't complain about the most popular lakes having SOME restrictions. I for one, am not a fan of complete catch and release lakes, but am one the biggest advocates of slot limits - I hear the best sixe trout to eat is between 12-15"s and I think every fisherman should have the chance to keep a bruiser to put on the wall. Strawberry cutts are great to eat at any size as we have consumed several over the slot, but I would love the slot to include rainbows also. Over the last two years or so, almost every serious trip to the berry has produced a slot buster.

I just really hate seeing reports of a group of 8 fishermen at Scofield who got into lots of fish and each kept 8, with lots of larger fish kept. Like I said, just because it is legal doesn't mean that it is best or even right, but this is coming from a fisherman who loves targeting bigger fish and doesn't enjoy eating trout very often.


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

> Fighting illegally stocked fish
> DWR seeks input on fishing ideas for 2009
> 
> The number of Utah chubs in Scofield Reservoir is growing. And so is the number of burbot and walleye that were placed illegally in two other Utah waters.
> ...


This is the proposal right from the DWR website. We are likely going to see a reduction on the limit and slots put on tigers and cutts in 2009 if the DWR decides to follow the biologists recommendations. I understand where you coming from LOAH. You are probably the most active fisherman on this forum and I love reading all of your reports. I agree that fishermen should be able to keep some of what they catch. Unfortunatley with the recommendations, possesion of your preferred fish would be limited. It is one sacrafice we may have to accept to preserve the fishery for future years. And as the chub population is reduced, the slot limits may be lifted or changed. I would never support a complete catch and release rule for a family water like Scofield, but if chubs take over and the resevoir has to be treated, it would likely be closed or have catch and release regulations until the resevoir was able to rebound (which nobody wants), so the slot limits are our best option at the moment. Look at the bright side, you still could potentially keep two tigers per trip along with a couple bows.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

There is another lesson of Strawberry besides that slot limits work. That is that you do NOT need to have artificial fly/lure only regs to successfully make a slot limit work. Sure some slot fish are lost to deep hooking, to the frustration of AFL anglers, but the overall population of Strawberry cutts shows that the losses are not significant. Another thing that seems to happen when stillwaters are made AFL is that some "locals" become enraged and complain about the regs to the DWR and their legislators. This has happened at Minersville and Kolob. (Yes, this state does have AFL/C&R lakes!) 

I infrequently keep fish and truly enjoy our trophy reg fisheries (bass AND trout), but I would much rather have a plan put in place that has widespread support and actually gets done than have a more agressive proposal submitted that causes a lot of in-fighting among groups of anglers and subsequent inaction. I think the current plan is ideal for all groups of anglers, both harvesting/recreational oriented and trophy fishermen.


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

Well, I suppose if the DWR already has a proposal in place for Scofield, I can only trust their better judgment. I really haven't noticed a chub problem, but I only fish a few parts of the lake.

Heck, I've never even seen a chub there. Not in my minnow trap, not in the water, nada. 

I guess I thought that the DWR was trying to "reinvent" Scofield's popularity (which was reason for their 8 trout limit, I thought) and putting a slot on the fish there, in my opinion, would kill the draw, especially for families.

As much as I dislike fussing about whether or not a fish is "okay", I'll support a plan to prevent a negative takeover, even if I haven't personally seen the villain.

Thanks for the quote, Flyfishn247. I should probably read up on the DWR site more often to stay in the loop on these things.

On a similar subject, what about Joe's Valley? That place has had a slot for quite a while and sure, there are some big fish in it, but they're rarely heard of in between the 12 inch runts. I've seen plenty of chubs there. Perhaps the depth and overall greater volume of water in Joe's will take a longer time for any noticeable improvements.


----------



## Jacksonman (Jan 16, 2008)

I have wondered the same thing about Joes Valley and the conclusions that I have come to with my very limited knowledge is that either there are not enough large tigers in there, or tigers aren't eating chubs as well as predicted, or for some reason the larger fish are not switching over to eating chub. Maybe the cutts do a better job at controlling chubs than the tiger trout do. I would bet Muskies would outdo both so we can hope to see them introduced into Joes Valley in the next few years.

I am also yet to see a chub at Scofield in any shape or form, and I fish there often for a few months a year, so I am guessing that they are seeing them in the gill nets. I have only caught one chub at Strawberry so maybe I am just lacking in the catching chub skills.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

Hook em and cook em anglers will ALWAYS get there way here in Utah. Thats just the way it is. I have spoken to fisheries biologist from other states before and one thing that they agree on is how poor of a job the dwr does on managing fisheries here in this state. 

Science has proven that a trout doesn't switch from a diet of insect to a diet consisting of fish until that fish stretches welll beyond the 20" mark. How many of the triger trout fisheries in this state where Tigers are planted to contol chub populations have an average size tiger that stretches over the 20" range? I do not know of any. Look at some of the reservoirs in SW Wyoming for example; Fontenelle. THere are quite a few chubs in there but what else do you find? Rainbows and browns that grow to giant sizes. Same with kemmerer city reservoir and viva naughton. Both of these lakes grow trophy rainbows and both of a fair amount of chubs but arent out of control.


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

Science has _proven_ that a trout doesn't switch from insects to fish until well beyond the 20" mark?

I have to disagree. Where is this scientific proof you speak of? I hate to call you out, but that's preposterous. You state this as fact and it is far from it.

I've caught rainbows as small as 10" with minnows. Perch as small as 7 inches. I've seen 13 inch browns with 5 inch rainbows stuck in their throats. I've even seen fish skeletons inside a 14 inch _grayling_ (which would suggest active feeding, not just scavenging).

At Scofield alone, I regularly catch 13-16 inch rainbows with minnows (and I don't use tiny minnows). If these fish didn't recognize smaller fish as food, they wouldn't touch a minnow, dead or alive. In fact, that early switch to a fish diet has a lot to do with the ability of the fish to reach 20 inches.



flyguy7 said:


> Hook em and cook em anglers will ALWAYS get there way here in Utah. Thats just the way it is. I have spoken to fisheries biologist from other states before and one thing that they agree on is how poor of a job the DWR does on managing fisheries here in this state.


Come on. Our most popular reservoir has a slot limit. Our world famous river has strict artificial regs and a size limit through many stretches. Look at all the special regulations on specific waters in the proclamation. That section has small text (and only inserts on 3 pages) and is 14 pages long and lists a whole bunch of AFL waters, many of which are strictly C&R.

No, we're not Idaho. No, we're not Wyoming. We're Utah. It's a different place with different circumstances involved in managing its fisheries.

Why bash the DWR? They've got their hands full enough trying to keep up with the growing population, let alone those that think they could do a better job (buckets anyone?) than they do.

Why stay here and complain about the terrible job the DWR is doing when you could go and fish somewhere that has regs more suited to your liking?


----------



## FLYFSHR (Apr 16, 2008)

Loah- you beat me to the punch. well said.
Just remember, you're arguing with a guy who thinks Utah has only ONE C&R and/or AFL place to fish.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

what size minnows are you fishing with Loah?


----------



## takemefishin (Sep 13, 2007)

Flyfishn247 said:


> True, there is no quick fix, but it is better than letting it get out of control to the point of having to poison it and losing it for a few years. Scofield has always had chubs in it, it has been the last couple years that they have really started to multiply.


so its the 8 fish limit thats causing this to happen? hmmm interesting concept

4 fish limit chubs dont take over the lake
8 fish limit Chubs start taking over the lake.

doesnt take a biologist to see that increasing the limit was a very bad idea.

how's the crawdad population? are their number on the rise? will they start taking over the lake too? its truly the end of days. O-|-O


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

The chubs were coming on strong before the 8 fish limit. The DWR surveyed anglers about the change. The options were to stock fewer fish and keep a 4 fish limit, or continue at historic stocking rates and increase the limit to 8 trout. It was hoped that there would be more forage and the remaining fish would get bigger. The problem is that the chubs, and in a small part shiners, are getting the food that would help the trout get big. 

I've caught chubs in my minnow traps up there for three or four years. I've yet to catch one on a hook since the last rotenone treatment.

Fishrmn


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

I was up there in mid June this year camped in Madsen Bay. In the evening , right before dark, I noticed a lot of rising fish on the north end. I walked down to the lake with a small midge thinking I was going to be catching some smaller trout. I ended up catching a half dozen fish, everyone of them were 6-8" chubs. 

Last fall I was up there and the wife wanted me to keep a fish for dinner that night. I ended up catching a 20" Rainbow and thought it would suffice for the family's supper. When I opened it up there were 14 baby crawdads in its stomach. I was surprised that the fish even hit my fly considering how much it already had in it. I even took pics of it I was so surprised. 

Now I agree with LOAH. A 12" bow will consume chub minnows up to a certain size due to the fact many fish this size are caught throwing lures. But once a chub gets up to 6-10" it takes a substantially bigger fish to effectively control that segment of the population. I have heard reports of over-the-slot Cutts out of strawberry being opened up to find 10"+ chubs inside. I doubt a 14" bow, cutt, or tiger could do that. With keeping some bigger fish in the resevoir, more segments of the chub population will be eaten and those that live on will die of old age, disease, or in the sagebrush after a fisherman pulls it off their hook. 

Bows are anatomically different from Cutts or tigers, primarily their head and mouth. Tigers and cutts have much wider mouths and bigger sharper teeth (Browns too), which make them more likely predators to other fish. I witnessed a large Brown eat a baby duck of the surface right in front of me. My friend caught a Brown under a bridge that had baby swallows in its throat that had fallen in the river. Bigger fish are more likely to eat bigger prey. I do not suggest a slot on the bows, even though bows are my favorite fish to catch. But slots on the cutts and tigers will do wonders in the long term.


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> what size minnows are you fishing with Loah?


Anywhere from 4-6 inches. Usually around 4 or 5.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

So, Loah, according to your logic 16-16 inch trout will prey upon the chubs as well as much larger trout.... That could be further from the truth. You are fishing 4-5" _dead_ minnows for bait. First of all, your minnows that you are using are smaller than your average adult chub and second the are dead, not moving. A species that is alive swimming around has to be hunted rather than any fish swimming by that smells it just swimming up to it and chewing on it.

Look at flaming gorge reservoir in the 70's. Before the takeover of lake trout the predominant species was brown trout. At the time F.G. was one of the most prolific giant brown trout fisheries in the world. Then the foodbase of the browns dissapeared (utah chub) thanks to a booming lake trout population and the lake is still filled with lake trout, another larger predatory species that had to survive by switching from a diet of utah chubs to the Kokanee salmon and stocked rainbow trout. When was the last time you caught a chub out of flaming gorge? ITs kinda hard to argue that larger trout arent going to have more of an impact on the chub population than the 13-16" rainbows and cutts.


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> ITs kinda hard to argue that larger trout arent going to have more of an impact on the chub population than the 13-16" rainbows and cutts.


Who said I was arguing that? :? No kidding.

You stated that a trout won't feed on smaller fish until they reach 20". I know that to be false and I'm still waiting for your scientific proof.



flyguy7 said:


> So, Loah, according to your logic 1*3*-16 inch trout will prey upon the chubs as well as much larger trout.... That could*n't* be further from the truth.


I bolded the parts that I changed to make your statement make any sense. I'm pretty sure that's what you were trying to say, right?

To answer what I think you're asking, no. I don't believe they will feed on them _as well_ as much larger trout. If you take another look at my wording, you'll see that all I stated was that they _will feed on them_.

Of course any fish will readily scavenge what they can (as per your dead minnows vs live comment), but that doesn't mean they won't also actively pursue (and eat) live fish of smaller size. Even guppies and goldfish in an aquarium will do that. Again, look back at my other post where I mentioned the 13 inch brown with a 5 inch rainbow stuck in it's throat and the grayling with skeletal remains in its belly.

Either way, the fish recognized the smaller fish as a food source, therefore treated them as such.


----------



## handsomefish (Nov 14, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> So, Loah, according to your logic 16-16 inch trout will prey upon the chubs as well as much larger trout.... That could be further from the truth. You are fishing 4-5" _dead_ minnows for bait. First of all, your minnows that you are using are smaller than your average adult chub and second the are dead, not moving. A species that is alive swimming around has to be hunted rather than any fish swimming by that smells it just swimming up to it and chewing on it.
> 
> Look at flaming gorge reservoir in the 70's. Before the takeover of lake trout the predominant species was brown trout. At the time F.G. was one of the most prolific giant brown trout fisheries in the world. Then the foodbase of the browns dissapeared (utah chub) thanks to a booming lake trout population and the lake is still filled with lake trout, another larger predatory species that had to survive by switching from a diet of utah chubs to the Kokanee salmon and stocked rainbow trout. When was the last time you caught a chub out of flaming gorge? ITs kinda hard to argue that larger trout arent going to have more of an impact on the chub population than the 13-16" rainbows and cutts.


I was'nt going to post on this thread because I haven't ever fished scofield but after this quote about flaming gorge I think I'll add my two cents worth
The browns didn't disapear because of the food base. they did some work on the dam to be able to draw water from different dephts to control the water temps on the river Thats why the green can support 12,000 fish per mile But it also lowerd the lakes temps and the browns haven't done as well since or atleast thats what I heard
And there are chubs in there still, I caught a 14 incher on a spinner this year


----------



## GRIFF (Sep 22, 2007)

I am pretty sure I am going to get torched for this, but here it goes. The problem I see with the 8 fish limit is magnified by a post made on 9/2 titled "Scofield is Hot". In this post there is a photo of 31 dead fish on the grass. Was it legal? Sure it was. Did it have a negative impact on the fishery? I think so.

I do not believe you can continually remove fish in the 15-22" inch range and expect to keep the chubs under control. Were there chubs in the reservoir before the 8 fish limit? Certainly, I for one believe a lake of that size can never be completely poisoned. Did the increased limit give the chubs a chance to gain a foothold that may never be relinquished? I think so.

I would love to see the 4 fish limit brought back and a minimum of a slot on tigers and cutts (catch and release would be even better).
Later,
Griff


----------



## FLYFSHR (Apr 16, 2008)

GRIFF said:


> I am pretty sure I am going to get torched for this, but here it goes. The problem I see with the 8 fish limit is magnified by a post made on 9/2 titled "Scofield is Hot". In this post there is a photo of 31 dead fish on the grass. Was it legal? Sure it was. Did it have a negative impact on the fishery? I think so.
> 
> I do not believe you can continually remove fish in the 15-22" inch range and expect to keep the chubs under control. Were there chubs in the reservoir before the 8 fish limit? Certainly, I for one believe a lake of that size can never be completely poisoned. Did the increased limit give the chubs a chance to gain a foothold that may never be relinquished? I think so.
> 
> ...


You aint gettin torched from me on that one. I agree with you 100%.
This is the same thing I was saying and also the same exact scenario as is Strawberry.
It has been proven that it's working there and I wouldn't think this lake would be any different.



flyguy7 said:


> So, Loah, according to your logic 16-16 inch trout will prey upon the chubs as well as much larger trout.... That could be further from the truth. You are fishing 4-5" _dead_ minnows for bait. First of all, your minnows that you are using are smaller than your average adult chub and second the are dead, not moving. A species that is alive swimming around has to be hunted rather than any fish swimming by that smells it just swimming up to it and chewing on it.


Dude, the trout will eat anything from a bug in/on the water to live *OR* dead minnows/chubs. It all depends on how hungry that fish is and to what extent they feel to do the deed.
Any trout in there will infact eat the chubs but to what size? Alot of trout have been caught with chubs up to half their length inside.
The bigger the trout is just means the bigger the chubs it can eat.

btw- you still haven't responded to my questioning of your ONE lake in Utah statement.


----------



## handsomefish (Nov 14, 2007)

GRIFF said:


> I am pretty sure I am going to get torched for this, but here it goes. The problem I see with the 8 fish limit is magnified by a post made on 9/2 titled "Scofield is Hot". In this post there is a photo of 31 dead fish on the grass. Was it legal? Sure it was. Did it have a negative impact on the fishery? I think so.
> 
> I do not believe you can continually remove fish in the 15-22" inch range and expect to keep the chubs under control. Were there chubs in the reservoir before the 8 fish limit? Certainly, I for one believe a lake of that size can never be completely poisoned. Did the increased limit give the chubs a chance to gain a foothold that may never be relinquished? I think so.
> 
> ...


I was about to agree with you untill I read the stocking reorts for the last five years
2004 they stocked over 500,000 rainbows
2005 they stocked over 500,000 rainbows and 100,000 tigers
2006 they stocked almost 500,000 rainbows
2007 they stocked almost 500,000 rainbows
2008 they do not show any stockings for this year
Rainbows are not the fish to control a chub problem and as far as a slot limit on cutts and tigers that wouldn't do much untill they put more in


----------



## Flyfishn247 (Oct 2, 2007)

> Rainbows are not the fish to control a chub problem and as far as a slot limit on cutts and tigers that wouldn't do much untill they put more in


AGREED!!! Plant 300,000 rainbows and 200,000 tigers and implement the recommended slot immediately. If so inclined, plant some of those worthless cutts, but personally I would rather see Browns instead. Once again, I am no biologist, but this is what I would do if I was in charge.


----------



## Gameface (Jun 7, 2008)

Look, I'm far (very far) from being an expert. But, if Cutts are so worthless why is the chub problem in Strawberry so much better? I thought the thinking was that the native Cutts have always naturally foraged on the Utah Chub. If using native fish to control another native fish is half as effective as introducing frankenfish into the equation I'd prefer the former approach.


----------



## GRIFF (Sep 22, 2007)

While I agree rainbows are not near as predatory as other fish, I know that they eat their fair share of bait fish. Scofield can not handle the harvest of 8 fish daily per angler between 15-22" (rainbow,cutthroat, or tiger trout) and keep on top of the chub problem.

By the way I am not a C&R nazi. I really understand the need to harvest fish when warranted. I also understand that we all pay for a license and that allows us to harvest fish. I just feel we all need to be responsible about when and how many fish we harvest, 8 fish limit or not.
Later,
Griff


----------



## Gameface (Jun 7, 2008)

I haven't heard a single person argue that we need to keep the 8 trout limit, and very few seem to be opposed to having some kind of a slot limit. Other than a few people who seem to have a holier-than-thou attitude there isn't a lot of disagreement.


----------



## catch&release (Nov 8, 2007)

Not to be an idiot but please explain to me why you would want to have a 8 fish limit anyway! Can a FAMILY even possibley eat 8 fish in one sitting? I think the higher the fish limit the more fish are going to be taken and wasted in the freezer. I dont keep fish personaly however i understand people do enjoy to eat fish but usually one or two fish at the most can be eaten per person. I havent had a chance yet to fish this reservoir but i have heard alot of good things about the fsih and fish size. A slot limit would of course do wonders for keeping bigger fish in the lake that will eat the chubs, Strawberry is a realy good example of that working in the past. I love the slot limit way better than destroying all fish in the lake with chemicals which is the biggest waste that i have ever seen.


----------



## Jacksonman (Jan 16, 2008)

Two things:

First, that Scofield is HOT post with 31 large fish kept was the post that inspired my earlier comments about legal but not healthy for the lake. Keep the lake a put and take for rainbows but put a slot on tigers and cutts. There really aren't that many cutts in there (have yet to catch one but have caught 100's of rainbows and probably 30 or so tigers) so I would recommend some additional stocking of larger cutts and tigers in the future.

Second, I know the stocking reports only list one stocking of tigers in Scofield but I know that it false. I have caught three generations of tigers on the same trip, 4-6"ers, 12-14"ers and 18-20"ers, so unless Tigers have pulled a Jurassic Park on us, the UWR is planting Tigers every year but trying to keep the public from knowing - OK by me.

A slot on tigers at Scofield will quickly produce a state record tiger, but will likely be broken by a tiger from electric in a few years.


----------

