# Golden Trout- Back in Utah!



## uintahiker

I was looking at the stocking reports for 2012 and it appears that golden trout have been re-stocked in Utah after a long absence! I certainly hope this is the case! Don't worry if you're afraid that Atwood Lake is going to be overrun with people now since it's an 18 mile hike to get in there. 

Any thoughts on this? 

Any of our DWR guys have any more to add?


----------



## LOAH

I'd like to know how they got the eggs or the fry. I thought CA was a real stickler about keeping their state fish, in their state.

Wow.

ATWOOD L U-16	DUCHESNE	GOLDEN TROUT	10301	1.3"	09/24/2012


----------



## leviwin

Maybe they got them from Wyoming?


----------



## grousehunter

I saw fingerlings in what appeared to be a dead lake in the Wind river range. I had a feeling they were stocked, maybe Wyoming is breeding them.


----------



## Bscuderi

They were already in Atwood lake too but maybe this will make them easier to catch  too bad they will grow so slow i wanted to backpack that area next spring.


----------



## Amy

I noticed this discussion and followed up with our coldwater sportfish coordinator, Paul Birdsey. Here's some more information:

• We recently obtained golden trout eggs (currently recognized as a subspecies of rainbow trout) from Wyoming Game and Fish.
• This was not part of a formal trade, but it is part of an ongoing cooperative partnership with Wyoming.
• Enough eggs were obtained to stock approximately 13,000 fish.
— 10,000 fingerlings were stocked into the Atwood Basin (northeastern Utah) this fall.
— The remainder are being held until the spring, when they will be stocked into the Murdock Basin (northern Utah).
• The Forest Service was part of the decision-making process because some of the stocking areas are within the Wilderness Area. Approval was granted based on the fact that this was a supplemental stocking of an existing population of non-native salmonids.
• We anticipate being able to acquire eggs from Wyoming on a regular basis from now on.


----------



## uintahiker

Awesome! I was talking with Wes Pearce earlier this year and he said there weren't plans to put goldens back in the Uintas. I'm glad things have changed! 

Any plans to put any in southen Utah- say Boulder Mountain?

Fishermen- we can help keep them here. I know in the Murdock Basin if you catch brookies, be sure to keep them even if they are a bit small. Every brook trout kept is one less that will compete with the goldens. We've almost lost the goldens in Utah- lets do our part to help keep them here!


----------



## ColdWaterCoord

At the moment there are no plans to stock golden trout elsewhere in the state. The best way to request a new stocking is to work through the Regional Aquatics Manager in the appropriate region. They can then determine if the stocking is in line with the public's desires, biological capacity of the proposed system, and compatibility with other management. Because golden trout are fertile, they are limited to areas outside of any cutthroat conservation areas.

Paul Birdsey
Coldwater Sportfish Coordinator, UDWR


----------



## Catherder

Amy said:


> • Enough eggs were obtained to stock approximately 13,000 fish.
> - 10,000 fingerlings were stocked into the Atwood Basin (northeastern Utah) this fall.
> - The remainder are being held until the spring, when they will be stocked into the Murdock Basin (northern Utah).


Yahoo! OOO°)OO -()/- *()* -*|*-



uintahiker said:


> Fishermen- we can help keep them here. I know in the Murdock Basin if you catch brookies, be sure to keep them even if they are a bit small. Every brook trout kept is one less that will compete with the goldens. We've almost lost the goldens in Utah- lets do our part to help keep them here!


+1


----------



## LOAH

Aren't there some viable fisheries on Boulder Mtn or the FL Plateau that don't have much of an above ground inlet/outlet, which would keep goldens from spreading throughout the drainage?


----------



## tye dye twins

Great to hear the goldens are on the return here in Utah. About freaking time if you ask me!


----------



## wyogoob

For years Wyoming had a good golden trout "egg bank" at Surprise Lake. Surprise Lake was reasonably close to a road and not all that far from a hatchery. About 6 years after the 88 fires took out the forest in the drainage above the lake, the goldens, and Wyoming's golden trout stocking program, came to a halt. Then there was a period of time the Game & Fish spent looking for another source, another lake, with pure-bred fish. There are quite a few in the Winds but access is extremely difficult.

Now Wyoming is raising goldens in the Story Hatchery up by Sheridan. I think they did about 350,000 goldens this past year, a small number compared to the old days, but an ever improving number none the less.

I see Utah also put a few goldens in Allen and the lake above Attwood, U-13 or U-19, can't remember which

Anytime I ever went to Atwood there were people there. And I find it much easier to get to it from the North Slope vs up the Uinta River.


----------



## brookieguy1

LOAH said:


> Aren't there some viable fisheries on Boulder Mtn or the FL Plateau that don't have much of an above ground inlet/outlet, which would keep goldens from spreading throughout the drainage?


Truthfully, I doubt it. Most those lakes on boulder and FL have large underground aquifers (from what I hear) that could possibly transport fingerlings to other areas. Probably not quite cold enough water year-round for goldens either.


----------



## Dodger

A big thank you to DWR and to Wyoming for working together with us to make this happen in Utah again.

We all win when different state agencies work together. I know Wyoming and Utah wildlife agencies have had their differences years ago and it led to some longstanding hard feelings. I hope with the significant time passed since then we can continue to let the past be the past and continue working together for the betterment of outdoor opportunities that we enjoy regardless of political boundaries.


----------



## billybob

I have nothing to say other than, great work by our DWR, and thank you to Wyoming for its cooperation. I love catching different types of trout, and this will keep me in Utah trying to catch the elusive Golden. I actually spent a day scouting out rivers in California last month where I could catch Goldens, and was willing to spend the money to get licensed there to do it. Having learned this, I will put it into Utah. Good work guys.


----------



## PBH

LOAH said:


> Aren't there some viable fisheries on Boulder Mtn or the FL Plateau that don't have much of an above ground inlet/outlet, which would keep goldens from spreading throughout the drainage?


 NO!!

I don't believe in the "underground" theory posted by brookie. But in numerous places (think about lakes on the Top) what you see is high spring runoff, where those lakes without "outlets" actually overflow and end up in places like East and West Boulder Creek.

If you have any specif basin's or drainages that you think would work, let me know and I'll gladly explain why it wouldn't! 

Boulder Mountain has too much native cutthroat range for an exotic like Golden trout -- a species that could potentially hybridize with cutthroat. Add to that the problem with brook trout on that mountain, and I think it would be a recipe for disaster.

I do think that the DWR has done a very good job with the grayling on Boulder, and I think that they could actually expand on where they stock grayling. While grayling might compete with cutthroat, we know that they won't hybridize with them. They are a much better option for anglers looking for more variety.


----------



## LOAH

I have one lake in mind on the FL that I've contacted Mike about. We'll see what he has to say.

It doesn't seem to ever have an above ground outlet (at least not for long before it's into the rocks), but I'm not there everyday, so I suppose I really don't know.

It's the first place that popped into my head when I read this thread. Communication is a good thing, right?


----------



## PBH

Emerald?

If the brook trout can't make it there, do you suppose golden's would? (maybe that's not what you are referring to, I don't know...)

I still think it's a bad idea. We have too much at stake with our cutthroat fisheries to be messing around with exotics that have the potential to impact cutthroat (hybridize).


----------



## Dodger

I dunno PBH. A "goldthroat" would be pretty cool . . . 


Just kidding, of course.


----------



## Packout

Pretty neat announcement. I sure like the WY G&F.


----------



## LOAH

No, not that fishless puddle. (And those weren't brookies.)

If you want to play the guessing game, I have room in my inbox.

Okay, now this might be slightly off-topic, but somewhat relevant to the discussion; If protecting the genetics of our cutthroat is such a high priority, how can the stocking of BL Cutts in Scofield (CR Drainage), Currant Creek, and Strawberry be allowed? I realize the rough fish problem requires certain action, but that has the potential to dirty up the genetics as much as anything else, right? 

Furthermore, other waters, on the Wasatch Plateau, spill into the CR system and their respective cutthroats don't seem to be of the Colorado River variety. No, I haven't personally taken DNA samples or counted the derbaderbs on the whoozaflops (technical terms there :lol: ), but they seem to be a big mutt blend from multiple strains mixing over time. I believe I've seen some DWR correspondence stating something to that degree as well (bad genetics in the area).

I'm not trying to poke holes in the DWR's work, but find it curious to stock a fertile, non-native strain into a reservoir that spills over every year, into a restoration drainage.

So with the goldens, proposing to have them stocked in a lake that doesn't seem to have much opportunity for up or downstream travel (that I'm aware of), I see no reason to automatically rule it out with out some consideration, at least.


----------



## PBH

LOAH said:


> So with the goldens, proposing to have them stocked in a lake that doesn't seem to have much opportunity for up or downstream travel (that I'm aware of), I see no reason to automatically rule it out with out some consideration, at least.


What makes you think that consideration hasn't already been given? That's something that always gets me withe anglers -- what makes any of us think that "our" new idea is actually a "new" idea at all?

Why aren't we talking about Apache trout? Paiute cutthroat? Gila trout? kamloops (ugh)?

There are a lot of "exotics" that we _could_ be discussing for new introductions into Utah. I think we need to have a better reason than just "they'd be neat!".

I'd rather see saugeye than goldens.


----------



## Dodger

PBH said:


> What makes you think that consideration hasn't already been given? That's something that always gets me withe anglers -- what makes any of us think that "our" new idea is actually a "new" idea at all?


Because up until 3 months ago, no one even knew we were getting Goldens again. So the only consideration that could have been given to put them on the Boulders would be more than 30 years out of date because that is the last time Goldens were stocked in Utah.

Given the changes in Cutthroat restoration and ESA issues over that time, and even if consideration had been given 30+ years ago, I'd say there isn't anything wrong with re-visiting that consideration.


----------



## LOAH

Pardon me for getting excited about an opportunity we haven't seen in this state for generations. Like it or not, THIS IS EXCITING to a lot of people. Golden trout are "neat", especially since our own populations of them are few and only available in one range, in limited areas.

Don't you think the people of southern Utah that like trout would also get excited to see goldens within their reach?

Again, public feedback is a good thing, right? They work for us, so it's important to maintain a healthy line of communication with them. Why ridicule someone for sharing an idea that could provide the public with a sport fishing opportunity that hasn't been available in the past?

Thankfully, I shared my idea with someone who is actually qualified to answer questions on behalf of the DWR, not just an armchair critic.

How's this response from an actual DWR biologist?

(Some background first; my proposition wasn't in hopes of having natural recruitment or to "fix" something that isn't broken, only to enhance the opportunities available to the anglers of this state.)



> "Thanks, Justin. Interesting idea.
> 
> If we actually wanted to get recruitment out of golden trout, we'd want a lake with a good inlet stream. Brook trout are the exception when it comes to trout (ie. being able to spawn on springs)--the rest need a decent stream with gravel. However, if we get eggs regularly (I don't know what the situation is), it wouldn't really matter if they could spawn or not. As far as **** goes, I'm not sure how they would do alongside the brooks. I guess I need to determine how abundant the brooks are.
> 
> I certainly don't mind the ideas, we can always make improvements on perfection, right? Keep em coming."


(That last statement wasn't him being snobby. I had explained that I'm already thrilled with the southern region, the way it is.)

I appreciate the DWR for their efforts and am grateful that they're willing to consider public input.


----------



## PBH

Dodger -- do you really believe that due to egg availability nobody has brought up the possibility of golden trout for the last 30 years? Just because eggs weren't available doesn't mean nobody brought it up. "New" ideas are constantly being discussed. Most of those "new" ideas aren't so new.

Loah -- relax. I'm not putting you down. I think it's great that the Uinta's got a shot of goldens. Great. Personally, I don't care to see golden's on Boulder or FL. That's my personal public input. That's what I'll tell the actual biolgists -- probably the same biologist you talked to. He'll probably be very polite to me too, when I suggest that they throw any requests for golden trout out the window.

I also appreciate the efforts of the DWR. I hope that instead of placing efforts into new exotics in southern Utah, that they continue to work with the natives and bolster those populations. That's my public input. It's not the way everyone thinks, and that's a good thing. I still think saugeye are a good idea.


----------



## Dodger

PBH said:


> Dodger -- do you really believe that due to egg availability nobody has brought up the possibility of golden trout for the last 30 years? Just because eggs weren't available doesn't mean nobody brought it up. "New" ideas are constantly being discussed. Most of those "new" ideas aren't so new.


I can't see how the idea could have been taken seriously without eggs to produce actual fish. It isn't impossible that someone would have brought it up in the last 30 years but it would be totally pie in the sky.

Are people talking about stocking Gilas and Apaches? Same situation. I haven't heard anyone say anything. It doesn't mean no one has talked about it, but I can't see how anyone has taken it seriously.


----------



## RichardClarke

The DWR has been planting non-native and novelty fish for years in the Boulders. Tiger Trout and Grayling definitely fit into that category. I like the idea of Golden trout in lakes such as Raft, Crater, Dead Horse, etc. Those lakes are at around 11,000 feet and somewhat resemble golden trout lakes I have visited in Wyoming. They could also put them in Clarke which was named after my forefathers or Honeymoon would be a possibility too. Like to see it happen.


----------



## wyoming2utah

So, you are thinking about replacing brook trout in places like Raft and Crater with golden trout and expect people not to cry foul? Sorry, but I just don't think the public will go for it....also, I realize that golden trout are used at high elevation lakes in the Wind Rivers and other mountain ranges, but my question is how well they do in low oxygen situations. IF they are similar to their rainbow cousins, overwintering fish in places like Raft and Crater would probably be a yearly problem. 

Honeymoon would not work because of the risk of golden trout and cutthroat cross-breeding...


----------



## wyoming2utah

LOAH said:


> If you want to play the guessing game, I have room in my inbox.


I'll guess...how about Lake Louise? We call it Aberdunk...it is a lake with naturally reproducing brook trout and stocked tiger trout. The problem with ideas like this is that Utah has had a lot of difficulty with golden trout competing with other fish--""We haven't had a lot of success with the golden trout," Wilson said. "The golden trout don't compete well with other species. We've tried to stock several lakes and it hasn't worked well. You almost have to remove the other species so they can be by themselves."


----------



## PBH

Richard -- what risks do tiger trout or grayling pose to native populations of cutthroat trout?

dodger -- if there was demand, would that have sparked more action to finding a source of eggs? Would California have had a source that Utah could have utilized if demand were high enough? Would anglers want golden trout if they had a different name -- like california trout? Would their attraction be as high?

Ideas always start somewhere, and don't necessarily become created after availability of a product.


Loah -- even in a place like aberdunk, I think golden's would be a bad idea. Consider the posibility of renovating tasha creek into a native cutthroat stream (a discussion that has been floating around for many years). The proximity of aberdunk to tasha would create a risk that in my own opinion would be too great. That wouldn't be good either.


----------



## Dodger

PBH said:


> dodger -- if there was demand, would that have sparked more action to finding a source of eggs? Would California have had a source that Utah could have utilized if demand were high enough? Would anglers want golden trout if they had a different name -- like california trout? Would their attraction be as high?
> 
> Ideas always start somewhere, and don't necessarily become created after availability of a product.


No, California shut down any export of Golden Trout eggs long before the last fry were stocked in the Uintas. There has been demand for years and years for Goldens because they were stocked in the Uintas, based on the information I can find, before the 50s and people liked catching them. The problem has been supply for at least 30 years.

I don't know what other names for Goldens has to do with anything and I don't really want to argue about how roses would smell if we called them stench blossoms. People fish for Goldens because they are some of the most beautiful trout God ever made. I think the attraction in Utah is based both upon their beauty and their relative rarity. Heaven help you if you want to try to go catch a non-hybridized one in California.

We can put this whole issue to rest if you answer 1 simple question. Do you know of anyone talking about stocking Golden trout prior to the last year given the shortage of eggs?


----------



## wyoming2utah

Dodger said:


> We can put this whole issue to rest if you answer 1 simple question. Do you know of anyone talking about stocking Golden trout prior to the last year given the shortage of eggs?


I have seen people on these fishing sites talk about stocking golden trout many times over the years...so, yes.

Also, the problem has not just been supply, but raising the fish. Most hatcheries across the West have been unable to raise them...the Story Fish Hatchery in Wyoming has been about the only one with any kind of success. If Utah continues to stock golden trout on any consistent basis, chances are they will have to find some kind of suitable place to raise them in Utah, or keep buying them from Wyoming. There might be some demand for them, but supply will continue to be an issue...


----------



## Dodger

wyoming2utah said:


> Dodger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can put this whole issue to rest if you answer 1 simple question. Do you know of anyone talking about stocking Golden trout prior to the last year given the shortage of eggs?
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen people on these fishing sites talk about stocking golden trout many times over the years...so, yes.
> 
> Also, the problem has not just been supply, but raising the fish. Most hatcheries across the West have been unable to raise them...the Story Fish Hatchery in Wyoming has been about the only one with any kind of success. If Utah continues to stock golden trout on any consistent basis, chances are they will have to find some kind of suitable place to raise them in Utah, or keep buying them from Wyoming. There might be some demand for them, but supply will continue to be an issue...
Click to expand...

So then no one could have been seriously talking about it, right? No supply = no stocking.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Dodger said:


> So then no one could have been seriously talking about it, right? No supply = no stocking.


Sure they could have....if demand were high enough, more efforts would have been made to acquire the supply. Or, more efforts would have been established to try and produce the supply ourselves. Perhaps now that some are being stocked, demand will go up...if so, I am sure more effort will be put into increasing the supply.

Look at the tiger musky program as an example...despite several years of no supply, there was still serious discussion of stocking them and acquiring more supply. So, the state has begun trying to establish their own brood program as well as purchasing fish. But, just because we didn't have the supply for several years didn't mean that talks of stocking them weren't serious...


----------



## Dodger

wyoming2utah said:


> Dodger said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then no one could have been seriously talking about it, right? No supply = no stocking.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they could have....if demand were high enough, more efforts would have been made to acquire the supply. Or, more efforts would have been established to try and produce the supply ourselves. Perhaps now that some are being stocked, demand will go up...if so, I am sure more effort will be put into increasing the supply.
> 
> Look at the tiger musky program as an example...despite several years of no supply, there was still serious discussion of stocking them and acquiring more supply. So, the state has begun trying to establish their own brood program as well as purchasing fish. But, just because we didn't have the supply for several years didn't mean that talks of stocking them weren't serious...
Click to expand...

I think that's a good example. But, I do see a major differences. One is the Pike/Muskies are easy to get. They are everywhere so supply was possible. There is no available supply with Goldens. California and Wyoming are the only possibilities (Montana was in the same situation we were). California stopped supplying more than 30 years ago. Wyoming didn't have enough for what it needed. There was no supply, even if there was demand, which I think there is/was/has been.

We didn't have enough fish/genetic supply/money here to even get close to producing our own eggs. I just don't believe that anyone could have seriously considered stocking any Goldens since before the fire in WY that wiped out their brood stock.

Now that we have gotten a few more eggs, we could talk about developing our own stash now. But I don't think that was realistic prior to WY helping us out.


----------



## PBH

Dodger said:


> We can put this whole issue to rest if you answer 1 simple question. Do you know of anyone talking about stocking Golden trout prior to the last year given the shortage of eggs?


I think you can answer this yourself:


Dodger said:


> There has been demand for years and years for Goldens because they were stocked in the Uinta... and people liked catching them. The problem has been supply for at least 30 years.


If there has been demand, then there has obviously been talk by anglers (wishes) of stocking golden trout. Now, whether or not those talks have been simple wishes or valid requests could be debatable -- but the answer to your question is a simple: yes.

W2U also provided a good example of the same situation with tiger musky. When supplies of tiger musky became unavailable (100%), anglers and DWR managers continued to discuss stocking opportunities.

Had there been no discussion about stocking golden trout at all, then how do you explain the recent stockings? Obviously, someone was talking to Utah managers and Wyoming managers to make eggs available.


----------



## wyoming2utah

One thing you are missing, Dodger, is that Utah had a small supply...but demand isn't/hasn't been high enough to try to utilize that small supply to try and start raising our own for additional stocking. The whole native species thing has worked much the same way...especially with native CR cutts.


----------



## Dodger

Honestly PBH, I don't think that's true. It was only after the eggs became available that DWR started thinking about stocking them. Before then any discussion of stocking Goldens couldn't have been serious. But, I think, based on what you said, we are agreeing. "Now, whether or not those talks have been simple wishes or valid requests could be debatable" - it is the seriousness of those wishes/requests that we are talking about.

As I said though, you can get muskies and pike to cross in at least half of the States in the US. There are only 2 viable supplies for Goldens - CA, which won't do it, and WY, which couldn't until very recently do it.

And W2U, my point is that our supply wasn't genetically viable/accessible to raise our own for additional stocking. Not to mention the cost of doing it. Montana has the same problem - tiny tiny populations.

The native species thing is a different ball of wax because it has ESA implications. Goldens don't, at least in Utah.


----------



## Catherder

This is speculation on my part, but were the lakes that got the goldens selected because of potential to start a self sustaining population that could serve as a Utah brood stock lake? I know nothing of the Atwood basin, but the lake in the Murdock basin that has goldens has an inflow and outflow stream sufficient to allow natural golden reproduction all these years. If so, that may limit the potential number of lakes under consideration even more.

Maybe the Uintas biologist will chime in again and provide better answers.


----------



## wyoming2utah

Dodger said:


> As I said though, you can get muskies and pike to cross in at least half of the States in the US. There are only 2 viable supplies for Goldens - CA, which won't do it, and WY, which couldn't until very recently do it.


You could get muskies and pike to cross in a lot of states...that wasn't the problem. The problem was finding disease free fish...which the state couldn't find. So, even with all the available fish to cross...the supply still wasn't there. The disease free fish weren't available. And, because of the high demand, look at the lengths at which the state has gone to make sure this problem doesn't reoccur. Heck, we are developing our own brood program. Why, if the demand were as high, wouldn't we then go to the same lengths with golden trout?


Dodger said:


> And W2U, my point is that our supply wasn't genetically viable/accessible to raise our own for additional stocking. Not to mention the cost of doing it. Montana has the same problem - tiny tiny populations..


The same could have been said about some of our tiny populations of CR cutthroat--especially when you start looking at using the same fish in the same drainages that they were originally found. My point was that even with the tiny population of fish we had, had demand been high enough--like the need to expand a native population--we would have done more to do it. IF golden trout were native to Utah, you can bet that everything feasibly possible would have been done to not only protect that tiny population but also to expand it...


Catherder said:


> This is speculation on my part, but were the lakes that got the goldens selected because of potential to start a self sustaining population that could serve as a Utah brood stock lake?


I don't know either, but I would imagine that the lakes that were chosen were done so on the basis of a couple things among others--1) a history of golden trout stocking 2) the possibility of natural reproduction 3) high mountain, cold clear water, with high oxygen content.


----------



## Dodger

wyoming2utah said:


> Dodger said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said though, you can get muskies and pike to cross in at least half of the States in the US. There are only 2 viable supplies for Goldens - CA, which won't do it, and WY, which couldn't until very recently do it.
> 
> 
> 
> You could get muskies and pike to cross in a lot of states...that wasn't the problem. The problem was finding disease free fish...which the state couldn't find. So, even with all the available fish to cross...the supply still wasn't there. The disease free fish weren't available. And, because of the high demand, look at the lengths at which the state has gone to make sure this problem doesn't reoccur. Heck, we are developing our own brood program. Why, if the demand were as high, wouldn't we then go to the same lengths with golden trout?
> 
> You could still find the actual fish though, which is the way we got them for many years until we found disease free Muskies. Also, Tigers are hybrids so there isn't any issue with putting them in more lakes because they won't make more Tigers. We can't put Goldens in as many places because they aren't hybrids, whether the demand was there or not.
> 
> 
> 
> Dodger said:
> 
> 
> 
> And W2U, my point is that our supply wasn't genetically viable/accessible to raise our own for additional stocking. Not to mention the cost of doing it. Montana has the same problem - tiny tiny populations..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The same could have been said about some of our tiny populations of CR cutthroat--especially when you start looking at using the same fish in the same drainages that they were originally found. My point was that even with the tiny population of fish we had, had demand been high enough--like the need to expand a native population--we would have done more to do it. IF golden trout were native to Utah, you can bet that everything feasibly possible would have been done to not only protect that tiny population but also to expand it...
> 
> But, again, we didn't have a choice with CRC stocking. If we didn't do it, the Feds would have taken it over because of of the ESA. We had to rely on small populations to make it happen, at great expense. And, I would also argue that the small populations of CRCs was still much bigger than what is left in the Murdock Basin.
> 
> Goldens aren't native to Utah so the ESA doesn't apply, which is what I said previously. But that goes back to my original point, no one has been seriously considering stocking Goldens for whatever reason - money, egg availability, whatever. It has all been pie in the sky until now. Now with some potential to create egg availability, and for a reasonable cost, I don't see any problem with talking about putting them on the Boulders.
> 
> 
> 
> Catherder said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is speculation on my part, but were the lakes that got the goldens selected because of potential to start a self sustaining population that could serve as a Utah brood stock lake?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know either, but I would imagine that the lakes that were chosen were done so on the basis of a couple things among others--1) a history of golden trout stocking 2) the possibility of natural reproduction 3) high mountain, cold clear water, with high oxygen content.
Click to expand...

Aren't those the same things? - a lake that could start a self sustaining population that could serve as a utah brood stock lake with a history of golden trout stocking, the possibility of natural reproduction, and a high mountain, cold clear water, with high oxygen content (likely because of the streams coming in and out, which are also required for spawning)?


----------



## wyogoob

I remember when the Game & Fish use to take horses into Surprise Lake at ice-out and get golden trout eggs. Surprise Lake was relatively close to the road and not all that hard to get to. They had aluminum gate-like contraptions at the inlet to capture the spawning goldens. They also had those gizmos for grayling at the lake at the trailhead. Hey, brookieguy1, it's the lake you and I fished. 

The '88 fires above Surprise Lake ruined the fishery. In about 10 years the goldens were gone. After years looking for another source of eggs the WY Game & Fish finally found a lake that supplied some eggs for a few years. Now they have brood stock at the rennovated hatchery in Story WY. It is the only hatchery in the country to successfully breed golden trout in captivity. Quite a story:

http://trib.com/lifestyles/recreation/s ... a7cf8.html

http://wgfd.wyo.gov/web2011/Departments ... 001934.pdf

http://www.bighornmountainradio.com/hom ... &Itemid=58


----------



## RichardClarke

The problem with these internet chat rooms is it can be difficult to tell if the person on the other end of the keyboard is just arguing for the sake of arguing. I have a hunch that if the majority of people who responded to this would have been adamantly against the introduction of golden trout, wyoming2utah and pbh would have taken the opposite stance and argued vehemently for their place in the Boulders. I would recommend to Loah, Dodger and others to take this matter up with the RACs and possibly Wildlife board if you are serious about wanting these fish introduced into the southern region. Use words like "variety" and "increased opportunity" to sell it. I would recommend bypassing the southern region biologists initially and go make your pitch to the RAC and WB. Also getting a legitimate poll going with a number of signatures would help. Other than it can be good sport arguing on the internet about the pros and cons of this, your efforts will go nowhere unless you advance it beyond the internet and beyond the DWR biologists in the southern region. Unfortunately since Goldens aren't native to Utah, an organization like Trout Unlimited probably wouldn't lend support in this but it doesn't hurt in trying to get them on board as well. Good luck I'd like to see it happen.


----------



## LOAH

I'm not worried about giving this a "fair trial" at all. W2U & PBH are just putting things into perspective and trying to make sure that people are thinking of as many variables as possible. The southern biologist I've spoken with is actually giving this some real consideration and I appreciate it.

Really, this whole thing has been very favorable to the initial idea. Options for stocking them in the southern region will now be explored and that's all I can hope for. If they give the fish a chance to live in Aberdunk, it may very well prove to be a great place for such a trial. The assumed lack of reproduction from the goldens without a stream would only be instrumental in their management.

Perhaps the springs in the lake would be able to keep enough cold, oxygenated water flowing in to support them. Perhaps not. I'm sure that will be scrutinized.

The existing brookies in there are pretty, but aren't considered "trophies", so that won't likely ruffle as many feathers as some other lakes would. Those brookies are providing one of the road blocks to my proposal. Sure, the goldens have managed to survive in the Uintas in brookie lakes, but saying that they're doing well would be giving them too much credit.

If it were decided to kill the brookies first, then at least the lake is small and wouldn't require a huge surplus of rotenone.

The other major concern that has been voiced is of bucket biology. It wouldn't be too hard for someone to transport a live fish from that lake, down to Tasha Creek. This is always a concern though. Personally, I've never seen a tiger trout in Tasha, but that doesn't mean they haven't been tossed in there from the lake. They don't reproduce either, so that threat is mild compared to a fertile species.

I can see and understand the main concerns. Tasha is indirectly connected to some important water bodies.

Time to sit back and let the DWR work. See what they come up with.


----------



## PBH

RichardClarke said:


> The problem with these internet chat rooms is it can be difficult to tell if the person on the other end of the keyboard is just arguing for the sake of arguing. I have a hunch that if the majority of people who responded to this would have been adamantly against the introduction of golden trout, wyoming2utah and pbh would have taken the opposite stance and argued vehemently for their place in the Boulders.


I like a good arguement -- but I don't argue just to argue. Actually, these discussions are healthy -- if everyone agreed, would there be anything to discuss?

As for the Boulder Mountain -- I will argue any time I feel that colorado river cutthroat populations on that mountain could be negatively impacted. Further, if _healthy_ populations of brook trout are negatively impacted, I will also argue for their benefit.

While Richard thinks I only argue to argue, and take whatever opposing side happens to come up, the truth is I only speak up when ideas come across that I disagree with. If it's a good idea, I keep my mouth shut. So it may appear that I am always the bad guy. That's OK. A different perspective is good. If golden trout ended up on the FL, I doubt I'd lose any sleep over it. In fact, I'd probably end up catching a few of them.

As for your advice of bypassing the southern region biologists -- wow. That's pretty sad that you feel that way. To think that our southern region has some of the best fisheries in Utah, and for some reason we still have anglers that don't want to work with our biolgists....it's crazy. But, if you want to just go straight to the politicians and allow them to manage our wildlife, then go right ahead. Just remember, sometimes you actually get what you ask for. And sometimes that isn't good.


----------



## wyogoob

Catherder said:


> This is speculation on my part, but were the lakes that got the goldens selected because of potential to start a self sustaining population that could serve as a Utah brood stock lake? I doubt Atwood Basin was picked to supply golden trout brood stock. Too hard to get to. As far as time goes Atwood is as far as you can get from a trailhead in the Uintas. I know nothing of the Atwood basin, but the lake in the Murdock basin that has goldens has an inflow and outflow stream sufficient to allow natural golden reproduction all these years. If so, that may limit the potential number of lakes under consideration even more. Maybe the lake in Murdock Basin was chosen as a potential golden brood stock lake. It's relatively easy to get to.
> 
> Maybe the Uintas biologist will chime in again and provide better answers. Yes, I'm curious why Atwood was picked. I can see trying U-13 and U-19, but Atwood is a reservoir subject to some pretty drastic water level fluctuations. Note that goldens were planted in Atwood before and from what I've heard, and seen, they didn't do all that well. I can think of dozens of lakes in the Uintas would be good golden fisheries, well worth trying anyway.[/quote]


----------



## wyoming2utah

I would bet Atwood was chosen because it has a history of goldens being stocked into it...our USFS is getting pickier and pickier as to where non-native fish can and cannot be stocked. Regardless of how well they did or didn't do, it is possible that the Ashley National Forest would only allow them into certain areas....I doubt they were put in there too for a brood stock lake. The fish in the Murdock Basin could have been stocked with the idea of a brood source in the future, but I would doubt it too...instead, they might have been stocked there because of the possibility of natural reproduction and the hope that they wouldn't have to be restocked. Remember, supply of these fish is still a problem.

Also, in terms of golden trout in southern Utah or on the Boulder, I am not sure I like the idea for a lot of reasons but the two primary reasons boil down to the issue of CR cutthroat and the issue of supply. I don't understand why you would want to plant golden trout into a lake or drainage on the Boulder when we know that we have a equally--or even more colorful--pretty native fish on the mountain. Instead of wasting money and resources on the golden trout, why not expand what we already have? We know that golden trout struggle under a lot of circumstances..if a lake has good, clean, cold oxygenated water, and is void of brook trout, why not use our money and resources to use the native fish in it over the non-native?


----------



## RichardClarke

PBH, I have limited experience dealing with the DWR biologists and RAC & WB. But how I look at it is there is virtually no science or biology needed at this point. This is purely a social issue. Golden Trout are not native to Utah. They would be planted merely to provide recreational opportunities to a select group of anglers, they do not have a scientific or biological need to plant Goldens. Thus at this point I see no need to engage a biologist. 

A few years ago I sent in a suggestion to a biologist. I think his name was Ottenbaker. It was about utilizing sterile brookies. He replied and said the proper venue was RACs for social matters. Then last year I got involved in the Panguitch Lake mess. Again I was told the rainbow trout fishery there and special regulations was a social issue not a biological one. The rainbows, just like golden trout, are there for the sole purpose of providing opportunity to anglers. I was told with Panguitch Lake to go through the RAC and WB process. I guess I reached the conclusion that since both of these fish are non native and for sport fishery improvement and not for biological reasons, I should go through the RACs. 

Personally I think it is better to go through the RACs and WB because if anglers showed enough interest via a poll or e-mails, the RACs or Board could task or mandate the DWR to come up with an inventory list of potential lakes in the SR that would be candidates for Goldens. It seems Loah wants to isolate one lake and one mountain and make that his argument. I think a better approach is to convince people there is substantial interest in the goldens and let the RAC tell the DWR to seriously consider numerous lakes. I think Loah is backing himself into a narrow corner by arguing about one lake on one mountain. The biologist he is dealing with could simply say "nope, not there can't be done" and end of story. To me this is a bigger and more exciting opportunity and parties outside the DWR should hear if there truly is interest and momentum with golden trout.


----------



## PBH

Richard -- I actually like your reasoning. No argument with it.


but, I will say, this is the very reason I don't like the RAC and WB system. All we have to do is look at hunting in Utah to see why this is such a slippery slope. We're taking away our managers ability to manage, and turning over the reins to special interest groups, like SFW. 

Again, I like your reasoning, and I think that you should pursue your interests using that avenue. Good luck to you.


----------



## RichardClarke

PBH, before I go a couple of other points of clarification. If you read my post I clearly recommend to Loah he should "initially" not engage the biologists. I am not saying biologists don't have a role in this process, they obviously do. But I believe their role comes along at a later date. Again the emphasis I used is "initially". How I envision this would work in a perfect world is: the RAC or WB goes to the SR and says 'hey what is all of this fuss over golden trout? It seems anglers want them considered for the SR. What is the biologists take on this?' The biologists could then weigh in and state whether or not it is feasible, what lakes could potentially sustain goldens, barriers such as the CRC recovery, etc. 

Also look at the danger in not involving the RAC or WB. Say Loah is successful and brokers a side deal with a local biologist and Aberdunk is treated and planted with Goldens. Other anglers that utilized the fishery for brookies could cry favoritism or ask why they were left out of the dialogue. I agree with you, I hate the RAC and WB process. But we have to respect it. It is the hand that has been dealt us in Utah.

Lastly, a group of us in 2011 got hammered pretty darn good about the Panguitch Lake deal and how we mishandled that mess. We got called out for NOT being involved in the WB process. Go figure.


----------



## LOAH

I think the DWR would likely provide the public with a way to express themselves about dumping any new species anywhere. 

If the DWR decides not to do it, that's perfectly fine. To me, it was merely a thought that seemed worthy of looking into. 

I'm not a southern local, btw.


----------



## brookieguy1

LOAH said:


> I think the DWR would likely provide the public with a way to express themselves about dumping any new species anywhere.
> 
> If the DWR decides not to do it, that's perfectly fine. To me, it was merely a thought that seemed worthy of looking into.
> 
> I'm not a southern local, btw.


Yes you are. You live in southern Orem.


----------



## LOAH

Central Orem. :lol: 

Richard - 

My reasoning to get a hold of the biologist is purely because I already had his contact info. He contacted me last year about a small pond that I went to, in regard to some wild cutthroat that were there. 

It was at that time when he invited me to stay in contact with him regarding things I might notice in that region.

Contacting him for a review of my idea was far easier than trying to get a topic at a meeting.


----------



## PBH

Loah / Richard -- I hope neither of you misunderstood my comments regarding the RAC and WB. I promote people to use that process very frequently, and I understand how important the RAC and WB is in managing our wildlife in Utah. Honestly, I wish MORE anglers would get involved in this whole process.

My fear is that many special interest groups have figured out how to turn this process into a political process, alienating biologists and managers, in an effort to promote their own special interest and NOT wildlife. Often times I have to wonder why we even have managers and biologists in todays environment -- we have plenty of special interest groups along with politically appointed WB members that seem to want to manage it all their way anyway.

Again -- I think both of you have a good grip on how to go about looking for something new. I applaud you for your efforts. While I may not agree with what you are looking for, I will agree that getting involved in the process is a good thing. Good luck to you.



As for Panguitch Lake, I think it is a great example of what happens when you allow the public to "manage". When you have two different groups that want two different things, you end up with a compromise. Compromise can end up with two different scenarios:
1. A compromise in which each group sacrifices a portion of their agenda in order to come to a common ground in which both groups end up happy.
or
2. A compromise in which each group sacrifices a portion of their agenda in order to come to a common ground in which neither group is happy.

With Panguitch, then end result was a compromise in which neither group is happy. Like I said before, sometimes you get exactly what you ask for!


----------



## troutfisher

I've had the privlige of catching golden trout in the uinta's. They are truly beautiful, and as far as i'm concerned, I"m glad to hear of their reestablishment. There is nothing wrong with some diversity since we only would have cutthroat trout,and didn't even exist in many of our mtn. lakes that provide trout fishing today.


----------

