# Native species restoration and hotspotting.



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

OK, I'm stuck here at home on my day off watching the weather rain out my fishing trip.  Since I have nothing better to do, I was thinking a bit about that 80+ post epic thread from a couple of days ago. Hotspotting was noted as a concern by a few members. I have no interest about directly talking about the aspect of having a bunch of evil hotspotting lurking knuckleheads crash your favorite fishing hole. (That subject has been covered in detail in the past)
What I do want to talk about is the native cutt restoration and publicity around these streams and lakes.


It isn't as bad as what I hear regarding the June suckers, but I have heard a number of anglers over the years whine about the costs associated with restoring Bonneville cutts and CRC's to their native range. Also, they complain about the brookies, browns, or bows in some of these fisheries being removed to return the cutts. Besides the fact that the "Center for Biologic Diversity" and other enviro and animal rights extremists will flood the courts with litigation if the native fish aren't restored to a level that keeps them from being listed as threatened or endangered, l have always thought it was cool that these fish were brought back, just to catch them and for aesthetic reasons. I think that if more people caught these beautiful fish, they would not be so antagonistic about the programs to restore them. Which brings me to my point. Most of the places this has been done have been in somewhat remote areas and the streams and lakes are not large. Is it wise to hotspot these project areas to increase awareness and enjoyment and allow interested anglers the chance to catch them, while possibly risk the chance at overexploitation, or keep these fish "under wraps" with the downside of continued criticism, apathy, and possible governmental budget cuts that could threaten the programs themselves? Also, is most of the CRC fishing down there C&R or is there a notable harvest? Are special regs needed?

Thoughts?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Catherder said:


> Which brings me to my point. Most of the places this has been done have been in somewhat remote areas and the streams and lakes are not large. Is it wise to hotspot these project areas to increase awareness and enjoyment and allow interested anglers the chance to catch them, while possibly risk the chance at overexploitation, or keep these fish "under wraps" with the downside of continued criticism, apathy, and possible governmental budget cuts that could threaten the programs themselves? Also, is most of the CRC fishing down there C&R or is there a notable harvest? Are special regs needed?
> 
> Thoughts?


I think you already answered your own question....if the areas are remote, I don't think overexploitation will be a problem. Also, in most of the streams, natural recruitment is expected and occurring....in some cases, the numbers of fish are really high. I think the awareness and increased interest in some of these areas is a good thing!

Also, I would say that there is a "notable harvest" on virtually every lake that allows it...but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. If the harvest is replaced through recruitment or stocking, then the fishery will be ok. However, if the harvest isn't replaced by new fish, over-harvest is an issue. Right now, I don't believe over harvest is an issue...


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

Thanks for starting the topic.
One thing to remember is that the Feds will grant the State a lot of money to do projects like this.
If we don't use the money in Utah, another State will get it.

I'm in favor of protecting native fish but I hope there can be a ballance where anglers can still have a good place to fish.

Strawberry Reservoir is a good example of this.
By adding sterile Rainbow Trout to the reservoir, the fishing just gets better.

In other smaller and more remote places it may not work to introduce several species of fish. 
In these places the balance is much more delicate and harder to maintain.

I feel that the UDWR does a very good job of protecting the fish and at the same time allowing for some great fishing opportunities.
This is a partnership between the Feds, State and Anglers.
All have to do their part for it to work.


----------



## BrookTroutKid (Oct 10, 2007)

The benefeit to these programs that implement native fish stocking in my eyes is the restoration work they do to the places affected. I have always wanted to catch a CRC and it's good to see that they are returning to lakes they were once native to! I love catching brookies, but if I had to choose a lake full of stunted brookies or big CRC then it would definitley the CRC's.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Ok, I don't disagree with anything that has been written, but you know me, time for some follow-up.



Grandpa D said:


> One thing to remember is that the Feds will grant the State a lot of money to do projects like this.


Truth, and the June suckers have especially been beneficiaries of this, but with the current Federal budget climate, I do predict that some of this money is going to dry up, especially for species *not* on the endangered list such as our cutts. This could require more state money or license fee hikes to cover it. This may require "selling" more anglers on the coolness of catching CRC's in their natural ranges as opposed to the usual fare of planter bows and stunted brookies.



wyoming2utah said:


> I would say that there is a "notable harvest" on virtually every lake that allows it...but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. If the harvest is replaced through recruitment or stocking, then the fishery will be ok. However, if the harvest isn't replaced by new fish, over-harvest is an issue. Right now, I don't believe over harvest is an issue...


This is good to hear. One of the reasons I am not as alarmed as some about hotspotting on certain brookie lakes is that significant mortality via harvest or other means seems to be *required* to get a trophy brookie. However, unlike brookies and browns, native cutts will tend not to stunt, but also will not reproduce at a level that can sustain intense harvest either. This could be a concern if pressure intensifies and could justify the concerns by those opposed to generous hotspotting. Also, unlike hatchery pet rainbows, the supply of CRC's and Bonnevilles available to stock (and repopulate new areas) is much more finite. If harvest is high, would stocking be able to keep up? Again, it is good to hear that it may not yet be a problem.



Grandpa D said:


> Strawberry Reservoir is a good example of this.
> By adding sterile Rainbow Trout to the reservoir, the fishing just gets better.
> 
> In other smaller and more remote places it may not work to introduce several species of fish.
> In these places the balance is much more delicate and harder to maintain.


I agree with you about Strawberry although I admit that I like catching the big cutts as much as the bows. Yet a lot of people complain that the cutts don't fight much, can't usually be harvested, and wish that the successful management plan was changed. It shows that you can't please everyone. I do think though that if more people caught CRC's and river Bonnevilles, they would be more popular generally.



Grandpa D said:


> I feel that the UDWR does a very good job of protecting the fish and at the same time allowing for some great fishing opportunities.


+1, and starting this thread does not imply otherwise by me.


----------



## Amy (Jan 22, 2009)

In case you haven't already seen it, here's a blog post from the DWR website about the restoration work planned for Ferron Creek.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

Thanks for the link,
Amy.
Very informative article.
This is a great example of what we are talking about.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Catherder said:


> However, unlike brookies and browns, native cutts will tend not to stunt, but also will not reproduce at a level that can sustain intense harvest either. This could be a concern if pressure intensifies and could justify the concerns by those opposed to generous hotspotting. Also, unlike hatchery pet rainbows, the supply of CRC's and Bonnevilles available to stock (and repopulate new areas) is much more finite. If harvest is high, would stocking be able to keep up?


If mortality is too high due to angler harvest, then we simply reduce limits, and change regulations (artificial flies and lures, etc.) to compensate, and help reduce mortality.


----------



## brookieguy1 (Oct 14, 2008)

I agree with all this as long as the balance of fishermen vs. harvest remains in balance. But on the other hand I would hate to see hotspotting instantly destroy a fishery to where they have to take drastic measures to repair it. I just feel names of lakes via P.Ms would be a much better approach to getting information. It would sure relieve my anxiety attacks when I start seeing hard-earned spots being loosely spoken of. I personally don't care alot about the cutts, but I know lots of folks who do and I realize their importance on the Mountain. After all, many of these CO Cutt lakes are like a 20 minute walk. Far from remote.


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

The cutthroats in Pine Creek Reservoir aren't wild and native. They are hatchery fish. They come from the same place the fish in your local community pond come from, a cement raceway in a hatchery. Look at the stocking reports on the DWR site for Pine Creek Reservoir, they dump 1,000 hatchery fish in it every year. Considering it is about a 3 acre pond that is a heck of a lot of hatchery fish. Technically they aren't even native to Pine Creek Reservoir. They are native to the historic Fremont River drainage which Pine Creek is obviously a part of. But never in the history of man were native colorado river cutts ever in Pine Creek Reservoir. I doubt there is much natural recruitment in Pine Creek Reservoir, if there were they wouldn't be dumping a thousand hatchery fish in it every year. It is a put, grow and take reservoir stocked with hatchery fish. 
It is a nice pretty man made reservoir that gets a crap load of fish once a year from a little plane that flies over loaded up with hatchery raised fish. It is nothing more than that.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

280 -- correct about the reservoir -- but they were in Pine Creek, and they DO reproduce in Pine Creek! As far as hatchery raised fish go -- what do you call "raised". Don't make it sound like these fish are in the hatchery for a year or two -- they aren't. They are "hatched" in a hatchery, then stocked as fingerling (1-3" fish). They spend a month or two in a hatchery. The eggs/milt come from fish that have spent the majority of their life in a lake/reservoir. This is certainly not the same situation as a hatchery rainbow trout.

Brookie -- if a situation came up that had serious negative consequences do to over harvest, the soltuion is simple: stock more fish.

You guys make this stuff out to be complicated. It's not. It's rather quite simple.


As for naming places on forums -- what's the difference between stating the name and placing a picture? A picture is worth a thousand words. If you dont' like hotspotting, then stop allowing people to post pictures!


----------



## 280Remington (Jun 2, 2008)

I have to agree with PBH. Once a person posts a photo on the world wide web for everyone in the universe to see, all bets are off and there are no rules. The original guy that posted very obvious photos of Pine Creek Reservoir, the Fremont River and the Bullberrys opened up the can of worms. The original poster faced a decision; he could have simply kept quiet, relished the quality experience he had or run to the computer and post photos of his "secret" place on the world wide web. So who is to blame here?
Pine Creek Res. is an unnatural man made impoundment with unnatural man made hatchery reared fish in it. If you know enough about how the two tracks and jeep trails work you can still bypass the gate at the bottom of the hill, go an alternate route and drive an ATV right next to the lake. Not really pristine in my book.


----------



## Brookie (Oct 26, 2008)

Yes he posted pics but it was somebody else that named the lakes. I believe it is in the rules not to name the place if the orginal poster didn't. I could be wrong though. At least last year a bunch of people where upset about this type of stuff. Including me.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Brookie said:


> Yes he posted pics but it was somebody else that named the lakes. I believe it is in the rules not to name the place if the orginal poster didn't. I could be wrong though. At least last year a bunch of people where upset about this type of stuff. Including me.


Whoa, I certainly named some lakes, but I didn't name the lakes in any of the pictures. In fact, I ASKED if the fish came from certain lakes. The answer could just as easily been "no" as "yes". The reaction of some of you guys made it obvious that I was right...


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

280Remington said:


> The original poster faced a decision; he could have simply kept quiet, relished the quality experience he had or run to the computer and post photos of his "secret" place on the world wide web. So who is to blame here?


Bingo. don't blame the guys that recognized the place, and wanted to discuss it. blame the guy that decided to open up the discussion by submitting the report.

FWIW -- I still want to know about access to the bulberries. Were there snow drifts? did he drive an ATV, or truck? could you have gone further up the mountain?


----------



## Brookie (Oct 26, 2008)

Right from the rules W2U
Some forum members post fishing or hunting reports without mentioning locations. Please assume that this was intentional, and *do not attempt to fill in the blanks when making followup posts in the thread. If you feel comfortable posting details in your own reports, feel free to do so.* In addition, please to not hassle forum members who do choose to include locations and details in their reports. Each forum member makes his or her own decision about how specific to be - please respect it.

You attempted to fill in the blanks from somebodys post


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

I asked him a question based on the pictures he posted....call it what you will, but he could have easily said "no".


----------



## Brookie (Oct 26, 2008)

Pm sent PBH

Slow day at school W2U, same at mine


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Ok, back to the original topic, is this lake in question a brood stock lake for CRC's?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Catherder said:


> Ok, back to the original topic, is this lake in question a brood stock lake for CRC's?


NO.


----------

