# New surveys / southern Utah



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I don't know how many have already noticed, but there are a few more surveys, specifically for the southern region:

http://wildlife.utah.gov/dwr/fisheries-surveys.html.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

Saugeyes in the Boulders?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

maybe they'd eat some of those brook trout who's populations get too high?


or maybe tiger musky.


I think saugeye in Mill Meadow would be a pretty good fit. Eat all those pesky perch!


----------



## tkidder (May 31, 2011)

Hopefully everyone takes the time to do these, a few really interesting ideas. Plus, if you do them you can really complain later when they don't do what you thought they should!

Seriously though, I liked a lot of the ideas being pushed.


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

One of the questions on the Boulder Mountain survey should be; "How did the DWR manage to ruin some of the best trophy brook trout fishing in the lower 48 states?"


----------



## HighmtnFish (Jun 3, 2010)

RichardClarke said:


> One of the questions on the Boulder Mountain survey should be; "How did the DWR manage to ruin some of the best trophy brook trout fishing in the lower 48 states?"


I don't know if the DWR ruined the brook trout fishing on the Boulder. There are many factors that have contributed to the decline of trophy Brookies on the mountain. The introduction of other species have had an impact on the Brookies for sure. My concern is with the amount of brookies that are planted on the mountain each year, I think there are too many fish planted too often. If some of the smaller, less well known lakes, were planted every other year or planted with fewer fish I'll bet the fish would get bigger in those lakes. The argument there is would you rather catch 50 skinny 12 inch Brookies or 5 fat 3 pound Brookies?
There is probably 3 times as many people fishing the mountain now than there was 15 years ago. I wonder if that has an impact on the Brookie fishing?


----------



## brookieguy1 (Oct 14, 2008)

RichardClarke said:


> One of the questions on the Boulder Mountain survey should be; "How did the DWR manage to ruin some of the best trophy brook trout fishing in the lower 48 states?"


It still has the best trophy brook trout fishing out of all 50 United States. To blame the DWR is rediculous. Blame the water years. Blame the available strains of brook trout available. Blame weird people for wanting sub-species of trout (tigers, cutts), but don't blame the DWR. Big brookies haven't been easy since the 70's. They're still there, just a bit more challenging.
Just a bit curious, RC, what do you think the DWR did wrong?
I agree with Highmtn though, Stocking numbers should be reduced to increase growth rates on some lakes. I think pressure is one of the least negative impacts. I've fished Boulder for around 30 years, and I remember as much or more pressure on certain lakes back then. That's why the Division is asking for input. This is our chance! Tell them what you think. Answer the survey. Certain lakes have been enhanced by dams built by our anscestors. These dams are failing. These lakes are more or less "gifts" from our past. They need help. Volunteer!


----------



## sawsman (Sep 13, 2007)

Thanks for the link. I've submitted a bunch of non-biological opinionated comments, since I'm no biologist.

Definitely more crowds on the Mountain as compared to 15 yrs ago. Hard to say how it has or hasn't factored in. Fishing has treated me well the last few years down there, so hard to complain.


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

What did the DWR do wrong? Hmm let's see.
1) Plant grayling in Pacer. This introduced another species of fish that are competing for food with the brook trout. 
2) Poisoned and re-planted with cutthroats and tigers some of the more fertile lakes on the mountain such as Solitaire, Pine Creek Reservoir, Round Willow Bottom, etc.
3) Introduced Tiger Trout to the Mountain when the original plan was an experimental planting only at Moosman Reservoir. 
4) Not properly utilizing sterile brook trout in fertile and productive lakes. 
5) Failing to understand that brook trout do not need to be planted every year, but can be planted every OTHER year. A staggered stocking schedule cuts down on fish density which increases size.
6) Converted Dougherty Basin to a Cutthroat lake thus taking away one of the better trophy lakes on the mountain. The remaining brook trout in there are proof positive how big they can get in there. 
7) Planting far TOO many fish in McGath. Again this is a density vs. size issue that the DWR fails to comprehend. McGath's stocking numbers could easily be reduced by 50%. 
Do I really need to list more? Also, no, the Boulders do not have the best trophy brook trout fishing in the lower 48 states. Not even close. Maybe in the early 70's, but no way now. Not even close.


----------



## sawsman (Sep 13, 2007)

Have to agree with the tiger trout. While pretty and good fighters, it seems they are everywhere now. Would love to see more sterile brookies instead. How much difference, if any as far as budget vs cost to produce?


----------



## brookieguy1 (Oct 14, 2008)

RichardClarke said:


> What did the DWR do wrong? Hmm let's see.
> 1) Plant grayling in Pacer. This introduced another species of fish that are competing for food with the brook trout.
> 2) Poisoned and re-planted with cutthroats and tigers some of the more fertile lakes on the mountain such as Solitaire, Pine Creek Reservoir, Round Willow Bottom, etc.
> 3) Introduced Tiger Trout to the Mountain when the original plan was an experimental planting only at Moosman Reservoir.
> ...


They have been stocking the same number of fingerlings per/year at McGath for the last 20 years. I agree, less would be good.
Where do you think has better brook trout fishing in the lower U.S.? Wyo? CO? Idaho? California? Certainly not in it's historic washed out eastern native range. I've done alot of research and there are deffinately times when certain areas in Montana or other western states have a period of putting out some good brook trout but I will proudly stand on the Boulder's being the best area in the United States for brook trout over 3 pounds.


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

Maine and New Hampshire supposedly have some killer brookie fishing. I haven't personally tried it, but there are some videos out there showing river brookies in the 4lb class. 

I'm pretty satisfied with Utah's brookies for now.

I took these surveys last week, from an email invite. Didn't complain much. I think Boulder is fine and like the available variety, but that's from my limited experience down there.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I could argue with guys like RC all day long. It would even be fun. I'll probably do it anyway.

But, the Sport Fish Enhancement Project has been a huge success. Sawsman said it about as well as any manager or biologist ever could:



sawsman said:


> Definitely more crowds on the Mountain as compared to 15 yrs ago.


Why is that? Simple: because the fishing is better today than it was 15 years ago!!

But, who am I to say it's better? I'm just a lowly fisherperson that enjoys catching big brook trout. It's obvious to me that RC fails to understand some basic management principles, but that's OK.

I've got a report titled "The Boulder Mountain Sport Fish Enhancement Project: A Review" that was completed in March of 2013. It has a lot of good information that can actually help RC understand what's happening up there. But he'd have to read it, and I doubt he would. The file size is too large to upload (unless the admins would be gracious enough to allow an exception -- 8mb). I would be happy to email it to anyone that wants it.


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

PBH, I am having a difficult time understanding your flawed logic. You state that since crowds are up on the Boulder, therefore the fishing must be better. So using your rationale everywhere that has seen an increase in fishing pressure must have better fishing than it had historically. So I guess Lee's Ferry in the 1970's wasn't as good as it is now because less people were fishing it back then. I guess the Green River below Flaming Gorge is better now than it was in the late 1980's and early 1990's because more people are fishing it today! Using your logic, Jordanelle Reservoir or Bear Lake must be better fishing than remote parts of Alaska or Argentina because more people fish Jordanelle and Bear Lake...
The truth is the Boulders saw a dramatic increase in usage when ATV's increased in popularity. In fact the Fish Lake-Dixie national forest just conducted a study that directly indexes forest usage with the rise in ATV popularity in recent years. The Boulders got popular once people started jumping on ATV's and no longer had to beat up their bodies or vehicles to get to the lakes. It has nothing to do with the quality (lack of quality) of the fishing in recent years.
Also, I respectfully decline to see a copy of this latest DWR propaganda regarding the Boulders. I have learned that a government agency really isn't the best party to be evaluating itself. If it was written by an independent body, maybe I would be interested. But I have no desire to read a document written by the DWR that pats themselves on their back. Would you read or place much importance on a document written by the Forest Service if they wrote about themselves and their fire management plan on Cedar Mountain or Mount Dutton???


----------



## brookieguy1 (Oct 14, 2008)

Is it possible? Is RichardClarke the reclusive Minivan?


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

Brookieguy1, I'm not sure what you are referring to. I drive a Nissan Titan. A red one.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

brookieguy1 said:


> Is it possible? Is RichardClarke the reclusive Minivan?


Hmmm, -Ov- Anything's possible, but no stories about being jailed in Chicago or hitting on the staff psychiatrist at the Wyoming State Mental Hospital so he could fish the hospital ponds, writing style not like Hunter S. Thompson either.

I would say no.


----------



## Brookie (Oct 26, 2008)

I like what RC is saying. I personally believe the trophy quality has gone way down over the past 10 to 15 years. There a many more people fishing it, because of the ATV movement. (I wish you had to walk into most of the lakes) More pressure should of helped the trophy aspects because the brookies shouldn't have been able to stunt. This has been wrong so far. Lakes still stunt and DWR still plants them every year instead of trying something different


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

RC / Brookie

Don't read it. It won't hurt my feelings. In fact, I hope the two of you stop fishing the mountain completely. It would be two more people that i don't have to contend with.



Brookie -- I'm curious which lakes still stunt and continue to be planted every year? Give me an example. Just one.

RC -- as for evaluating themselves -- It's called science. You put together a hypothesis, you make a plan, you test the plan, you evaluate the results, then you report. A good scientist will do what he can to eliminate bias. The report is good, but I didn't expect you to want to see it. Too much info to refute your claims...


----------



## Fishrmn (Sep 14, 2007)

Hmmm.... Which would I trust? The UDWR, or some guy with a fishin' pole? Let's see.... The guy with the fishin' pole goes fishin' and has a bad day and has something to complain about. The UDWR uses gill nets, statistics, computers, hires biologists who are passionate about fish and actually publishes their results with information to back up their claims. Hmmm..... The guy with the fishin' pole might want to whittle it down and use it as a crutch. Some people refuse to see what's in front of them.
:lalala:


----------



## provider (Jan 17, 2011)

+1 Richard

I think anyone who fished the Boulders 15+ years ago would agree with you. There isn't a better eating fish than a Boulder Mountain brookie. We used to catch a lot of fat, pink meat, brookies in Lower Barker. Now we primarily catch this years stocked rainbows.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Just wanted to get this back on track:

Those of you complaining about the lack of quality on Boulder Mountain: did you take the survey?


You obviously have some opinions on what should be done. Take advantage of your opportunity to share it with those who are in charge of managing the resource. One thing I would HIGHLY recommend is use specific examples (like Provider did). Don't just say "lakes with stunting issues are getting stocked too frequently". Back it up with something concrete. For example: Please POISON Oak Creek to remove fertile brook trout and restock with triploid brook trout!


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

PBH, I took this survey and provided specifics. A couple of things came to mind while taking it. First I really think the survey is about 12-15 years too late. The mass poisoning and treatment of the Boulder lakes started in the fall of 2001. That has been 13 fishing seasons ago. There is now an entire generation of fishermen that never knew the Boulders prior to when the DWR isolated the 16 lakes and started killing them off. Unfortunately this group of angler that missed the pre-treatment fishing is now in their early to mid 20's and that is the most tech savy group and the most likely to be on a computer and take an electronic survey. Us old timers or those that witnessed the fishery crash from the 1970's to the early 1990's are less inclined to participate in an internet survey. This group is in the minority, but offers the best overall perspective on the Boulder Mountains from the mid 1970s to today. Secondly the cutthroat reintroduction program is such a failure that it really needs an independent non-government entity to properly evaluate it. As proof one just has to look at the very first two lakes that were poisoned in the fall of 2001, Round Willow Bottom and Long Willow Bottom. Thirteen seasons later both of those fisheries rely 100% on hatchery plants. They have very little or no natural recruitment. Both of those lakes were hatchery dependent prior to the treatment and are still 100% hatchery dependent after the treatment 13 years later. A fishery would most certainly have been self sustaining in 13 years. They are fake fisheries with fake hatchery fish in them. 

Lastly comments have been made that us anglers should let the professionals dictate all of this. To me this entirely defeats the purpose of a public survey. If those that have responded saying who are anglers to judge professionals biologists. The answer is biologists are rarely fishermen. They are typically book smart and educated in theory not in practice or reality. The issue at hand is "Sport Fishing". Who better to weigh in on "sport fishing" than actual fishermen??? Science and fisheries biology is not recreational fishing. The are two entirely different animals. Biologists need fishermen to weigh in on the social aspects of fishing. That is the purpose of this survey.


----------



## Packfish (Oct 30, 2007)

PBH- I usually read and agree with most things you post . But
the reason why crowds are on the mountain you have flawed and the below goes against many of your posts over the last few years.

, I hope the two of you stop fishing the mountain completely. It would be two more people that i don't have to contend with.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

RC -- I would like to personally invite you to come visit with these non-sportsman, non-fishing fisheries biologists and managers at the open house in Cedar City from 6 - 8. It is at the southern region office. I hope you can make it. It would be a great opportunity for you to discuss your thoughts about the Boulder mountain with those book smart biologists.

I hope to see you there.

Packfish -- Quality fishing is certainly 1 reason why people are fishing the waters of the Boulder Mountain. That cannot be disputed.

Just like I've said to Minivan numerous times in the past, I'll say to RC as well: if it's that bad, find another place to go. That's just fine by me.

I honestly hope that he (RC) cares enough about the Boulder Mountains (it sounds like he does) that he would take the time to discuss the management face-to-face with the biologists at the open house being held tonight. In fact, maybe he'd ask the biologists why they got into the profession [fisheries biology / management]? He might learn something new.


----------



## HighmtnFish (Jun 3, 2010)

PBH said:


> RC -- I would like to personally invite you to come visit with these non-sportsman, non-fishing fisheries biologists and managers at the open house in Cedar City from 6 - 8. It is at the southern region office. I hope you can make it. It would be a great opportunity for you to discuss your thoughts about the Boulder mountain with those book smart biologists.
> 
> I hope to see you there.


I wish I would have known about this meeting sooner, I would have taken the afternoon off from work and gone to it. It would have been nice if they would have held this meeting on a Friday or Saturday.


----------



## brookieguy1 (Oct 14, 2008)

I think if a good number of folks that are passionate about the Boulder answer the survey, they will deffinately follow one of the wishes many of us agree on, lower stocking numbers and alternate years. I think they would give that a try. Might be an easy solution to more trophy sized fish, plus it would save them money.


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

Brookieguy1, I wouldn't hold your breath. In very few instances has the DWR tried to reduce stocking numbers. The state hatchery system is institutionalized. Even in the Minersville situation when the DWR broadcast that one of the benefits to special regs would be reduce stocking numbers, the true numbers don't bear this out. Just one look at the stocking records on the DWR website and you can tell the Division loves to grow trout in the hatcheries and they love to stock millions of trout each year. With that being said, I agree with you 110%. In places like McGath it is unfathomable that lake receives over 6,000 trout per year! Imagine if that number was cut in half. Same thing with smaller waters such as Tule, Lost and Yellow. Each of those fisheries receive at least double what they should be. Such a high density of fish in those lakes is starting to top out the growth potential in a very negative way. Last year I fished a lake in Wyoming that is planted with brook trout every three years. We had to ride in on horseback, but we caught brookies that were 23" and weighed up to 6 1/2 lbs. The lake had very few fish, but each brookie was literally a fish of a lifetime. Most of the trophy fisheries in the Wind River range are on a three or even four year rotation. 
Lastly one of the things the DWR has failed to factor in with stocking rates is harvest is much lower than it used to be. In the 1970's everybody that fished the Boulders kept a limit of fish, sometimes way more than their limit. How many fish do you see get harvested out of McGath or Deer Creek Lake these days? The compounding effect of planting fish year after year with minimal harvest is decreasing the fish size. You can't change angler behavior and have them keep more fish. But on the other end you can definitely reduce the number of fish going into the lake. But that is the rub. The DWR would rather promote harvest than reduce or jeopardize the sacred cow hatchery system.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

wait a minute. So, you're going to complain about McGath, Lost, and Yellow -- but you aren't going to mention Oak Creek??? Or Donkey? 

Consider what the DWR has been pressing for the last 8 years with Oak Creek -- a lake that get's too much recruitment from brook trout on good water years: The DWR (I believe) would like to poison Oak Creek to remove fertile brook trout and replace them with sterile brook trout. This would take mean two consecutive years of rotenone treatments to effectively remove the fertile population. Then, restock with sterile. It would take about 2 years to get the sterile brook trout to a "fishable" point. This would mean ~ 4 years of no fishing. Anglers are against this. Why? Because that 4 years is too long -- so we'll continue with mediocrity at that lake??

And you'll complain about McGath instead?? Ludicrous!! 

6k fish in McGath is nothing. If you're going to complain about too many fish in a lake, find a good example -- Like Donkey!! Another lake with too many brook trout and yet the general angling public continues to fight to leave it alone.

So, basically, what you've got is a group of anglers that complains when the DWR won't change, and complains when the do.

Missed you at the open house. It's too bad -- you seem to have some good ideas. Too bad you'd rather complain on an internet forum than discuss with people that can make a change. Oh well. I think we'll see some good things happening in southern Utah in the future. Even at Minersville.

HighMtn -- The Open Houses have been advertised. They even had one in Loa recently, which had the best turnout. But, don't let your opinions and ideas go unheard. Just call or email one of the biologists -- they would really like to hear from you. If you need, I can certainly get you contact info.


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

PHB, Upper Bowns (Oak Creek) and Donkey are completely different animals than Tule, McGath, Yellow. Upper Bowns and Donkey are entirely accessible by vehicle, not just ATVs but regular trucks can get in there. That makes the fishery, in my opinion, to be more of a family or casual destination. Secondly both of those reservoirs have entirely different problems than McGath, etc. With Oak Creek and Donkey it is all about the wild brook trout that overpopulate in good water years. I understand at Donkey they have been messing with the water levels in the fall to take away the spawning habitat. So your solution for both lakes is a rotenone poisoning!? That takes tons of environmental hoops to get through and years to pull off. The project could also get killed by local outcry. Look at what the folks in Boulder did a few years ago with that treatment project.
Tule, McGath, Yellow are victims of over stocking it isn't rocket science. A simple tweak to the numbers could potentially cure that problem and actually save the state money as Brookieguy pointed out. Also I see no value or lost opportunity in not attending an open house. I highly doubt myself or others would be able to persuade the DWR from their institutionalized management approach to the Boulders. Do you really think some joe blow from the street is going to stroll into a DWR open house and say this is how you guys need to be doing things and they say 'ok those are great ideas, we will get right on that'.


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

"Do you really think some joe blow from the street is going to stroll into a DWR open house and say this is how you guys need to be doing things and they say 'ok those are great ideas, we will get right on that"

Yes I do.
It only takes a few voices to get the attention of the DWR.
They do listed.
I personally have been involved in 2 changes recently.
First, the reduced possession limit at community ponds [4 to 2] and second, the lower limit on Wiper [6 to 3] at Willard Bay.

It only takes a few people to get the ball rolling.
Give it a try.


----------



## brookieguy1 (Oct 14, 2008)

I agree GranpaD , and I answered the survey along with volunteering with help. My suggestions were to go ahead and let Oak Creek and Donkey do their thing (at least Oak has periods of great fishing), and stock 1/2 the amount of brookies in Lakes like McGath where natural recruitment is virtually non-existent and the trophy status can be easily improved by lowering stocking numbers. Both scenarios save money. Folks that trek into the tougher lakes would much rather catch a couple slab-sided brook trout than even 20-30 smaller fish in a day of fishing. Let others go catch 8 skinny fish at lakes like Donkey, where the DWR doesn't even need to look at the lake to maintain it.


----------



## Brookie (Oct 26, 2008)

Sorry PBH for the late response, work and basketball camps keeping me to busy. I love your posts. I did take the survey and I told them what I would do with the lakes, Just like I have with your relatives before on the phone and my bother has done the same during an Ice fishing trip to fish lake this year. I guess we will see what happens. By the way send me the study article. I'll read it. I always do from you. Plus I volunteered to help when I can.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

brookieguy1 said:


> My suggestions were to go ahead and let Oak Creek and Donkey do their thing (at least Oak has periods of great fishing)


I disagree. That's OK -- we're allowed to do that. My reasoning is: why have those periods of good fishing followed by longer periods of mediocre fishing? Especially if you could have great fishing every year? Even at lakes like Donkey and Oak Creek!

I just spent two days over on Boulder. I sure love that place. The funny thing about it -- especially when I read these forums and see complaints about the fisheries management -- is that every time I go over there I am in awe of the fantastic fishing opportunities we have on that mountain. It is awesome.

One other comment that should be considered when requesting "every other year" stocking: Winterkill. This cannot be predicted. With winterkill and an every-other-year stocking schema, you run the risk of not having fish for 2 years in a row.

There isn't a simple solution. It's a complex issue and our managers need to have some flexibility.


----------



## Brookie (Oct 26, 2008)

I would think we could figure out if they winterkilled and change the planting schedule. I don't know why that would be so hard


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

figuring it out is easy. the problem is that by the time we know what lake had winterkill, we're too late to stock it that year, and it has to wait for the next year, and thus a possibility of two years missing fish.

You can't wait until mid-June to "place your order" (manage, plan, etc.). You wouldn't know if the lake winterkilled or not until at least mid-june, and maybe even later if you were actually attempting to verify each brook trout lake did, in fact, over winter fish. If biologists were doing this, they wouldn't be doing all of their other spring activities including gill-netting, cutthroat spawning, etc. There just plain isn't time to be verifying in order to adjust stocking numbers on the fly for each and every lake for that year. Thus, most get stocked every year in order to assure that fish don't go absent for a two year period.

cutting back stocking numbers may be a much easier method (cut numbers in half? Then adjust for the following year, if necessary).






Keep in mind -- they've been doing this stuff for years, and years. If the solution were simple, I have to imagine that they'd be doing the simple solution! (regardless of some opinions, these guys want to catch big brook trout too!)


----------



## RichardClarke (Nov 5, 2011)

PBH, I'm having a hard time understanding what the travesty is in missing a year or two of planting fish in a particular lake. There are numerous lakes in Wyoming, especially in the Wind River range, that are on alternating schedules and do not get planted each year. In a way you are an ambassador for anti-public input. If you read your responses on here over again, there is the repeated theme of the DWR knowing everything and they have tried everything before. If that is the case and there is not a fresh idea left on the face of this earth why even do a survey then? It seems to me that there is a contingent of anglers that are not happy with the direction the DWR is taking in regards to the management of trophy brook trout on the Boulder. My feeling is these anglers would like to see the DWR try to think outside of the box for once and maybe just maybe the fish size of the brookies will increase. But according to you, public input is all for naught because you seem to have a counter for virtually every suggestion that runs contrary to what the DWR is currently doing. Bringing this full circle; it begs the question as to why the DWR would even bother to ask for the public's input? Your attitude is what turned off anglers about the RAC process. Anglers didn't like engaging in a point/counter point argument with biologists and over the years angler participation at RACs dwindled to the point where the RAC process was abandoned in favor of other avenues such as surveys and open house meetings. But if the attitude of us vs. them remains, even the surveys and public open houses will eventually be under attended to the point they will go the way of the angling RAC meetings. Some of the ideas about skipping annual plants and going on a staggered stocking schedule for certain lakes isn't a pie in the sky idea, in fact it is embraced by other fisheries biologists in other states.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Richard -- your bias is clouding your reading ability. I have agreed that some lakes could use some reduced stocking. Just like you.

However, using an even/odd, alternating stocking schedule has it's own problems. Like mentioned, if you use an alternating schedule and a complete winterkill happens (Pear??) then you miss a year of stocking -- you are left with nothing in the lake for nearly two years. Is this desirable??

I think cutting stocking at some lakes in half may be a better solution. That way you never run that risk of not having any fish in the lake.

I have no problem with anglers making suggestions. However, when the suggestion is a bad suggestion why in the world should me or the DWR further explore that option??


FWIW -- I spent last weekend on the Boulder. I caught some very respectable brook trout. I'm going to go back again this weekend. Maybe the "thinking outside the box" ideology needs to be expanded to anglers as well??


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

Just wondering, not criticizing:

If a lake winter kills, then why restock it at all?

I suppose a "winter kill" doesn't necessarily mean a complete die off in many cases, right?

Also, a lake without fish for two years in a row (or whatever it took for a good water year) could be quite fertile for the next scheduled planting, with nothing eating all the food.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

LOAH said:


> If a lake winter kills, then why restock it at all?


You've nearly answered it by yourself:



LOAH said:


> I suppose a "winter kill" doesn't necessarily mean a complete die off in many cases, right?
> 
> Also, a lake without fish for two years in a row (or whatever it took for a good water year) could be quite fertile for the next scheduled planting, with nothing eating all the food.


Often times you only get a partial kill. But, more importantly, the lakes we're discussing do not winterkill *each year*. If they did winterkill each year, the program would most likley be discontinued. But, not always. A good example is Banana -- the rainbow trout almost never make it through the winter (although, a handful of brook trout do on occasion). So, why stock it at all? Because of your second comment: food. growth rates.

Your next part of your comments is exactly why brook trout get so large, so quickly, on Boulder mountain. It's all about the amphipods (fresh water shrimp). When you look at a lake that is nearing a population crash (Donkey) you cannot find an amphipod in it. If you remove those fish (winterkill, rotenone, etc.), then the amphipod population explodes -- you'll easily see them swimming all over in the water. Guess what happens when you put fish back in the lake full of amphipods? Bingo! Fish get BIG, FAST. This is one reason why it only takes 3 years to get big fish up there. So, find yourself a lake that has winterkill (or partial kill) about every 4 years, and you've got yourself a winner.

in the example I gave (Banana), you stock a catchable size trout in the spring (10") and by fall you have an 18" rainbow! It's all about maximizing growth rates.

Ever wonder why a trout's flesh is sometimes bright red/pink? It's the same reason that a flamingo is pink: keratin. Crustaceans are loaded with it. Flamingos feed on them, and it turns them pink. If you take that away from their diet, they would turn white. A brook trout is very similar -- feed it amphipods (a crustacean loaded with keratin) and their flesh turns pink. Take that away, and it would turn more pale. Same thing with colorado river cutthroat -- put them in a stream and they'll turn more orange in color. Put them in a lake with amphipods (Dougherty, Willow Bottoms, Solitaire, etc.) and they'll turn crimson red!


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

So I figured. Thanks for confirming.


----------



## Catherder (Aug 2, 2008)

PBH said:


> Ever wonder why a trout's flesh is sometimes bright red/pink? It's the same reason that a flamingo is pink: keratin. Crustaceans are loaded with it. Flamingos feed on them, and it turns them pink. If you take that away from their diet, they would turn white. A brook trout is very similar -- feed it amphipods (a crustacean loaded with keratin) and their flesh turns pink. Take that away, and it would turn more pale. Same thing with colorado river cutthroat -- put them in a stream and they'll turn more orange in color. Put them in a lake with amphipods (Dougherty, Willow Bottoms, Solitaire, etc.) and they'll turn crimson red!


Small correction needed here. The ingredients that makes flamingos pink and makes trout flesh a yummy red or pink are called *carotenoids*. Beta carotene is what makes a carrot orange. Other carotenoids are found in shrimp. *Keratin* is the structural protien in our skin and is in our hair and nails. So unless the fish are eating dandruff, keratin isn't what is coloring their meat.

Sorry,  couldn't help myself. Carry on! (Good discussion)


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

So biting your nails definitely won't help a sunburn.-O,-


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

I actually knew that. Not sure what I was smoking yesterday. That's kind of embarrassing. Oh well. I've stuck my foot in my mouth before, and I'm sure I'll do it again...


FWIW -- surveys will be taken down very soon. if you haven't taken the surveys yet, I would encourage you to do so.


----------



## Dunkem (May 8, 2012)

:smokin::hippie:


----------

