07-09-2019, 02:38 PM
[quote joatmon]
All fish were in the 10-13” range.
One would think there would be a fair mix of fish in sizes across the slot (15-22”), but we aren’t seeing it. Do we need to be more patient? [/quote]
Do we need to be more patient? YES
Unfortunately, we shouldn't have to wait this long. I mean, it's been 20+ years. And the current plan calls for more patience.
You have to remember that big fish (particularly trout) are the product of FAST GROWTH. When you have a system that is already at (or over!) carrying capacity, growth rates will be slow. Scofield has a lot of chubs. Too many chubs. Chubs directly compete with the trout for food -- in fact, chubs out-compete the trout. This means those trout will grow slow. Slow growth = small fish. This is why many anglers wanted Scofield poisoned. When fish are stocked into a lake after a poisoning, they experience FAST fish growth! Had the lake been poisoned last summer, then restocked with those same 11 -12" fish last fall, you'd be catching 16" trout today vs. the 13" trout. How's that for patience?
You also have to remember that fish are not mammals. Fish do not always get bigger as they age, like mammals typically do. Sometimes fish "grow" smaller. As population density increases, average size decreases. You then end up with a "stunted" population, which means that you have fish reaching sexual maturity at smaller than normal sizes.
So, all of this means that the answer to your question ("do we need to be more patient") is a definitive YES. The current management plan will not work quickly. It is a slow process and will demand patience from anglers.
The problem with anglers is that we are not patient.
Many anglers wanted Scofield poisoned. When fish are stocked into a lake after a poisoning, they experience FAST fish growth because the direct competition from chubs has been removed (or severely reduced). Had the lake been poisoned last summer, then restocked with those same 11 -12" trout, plus wipers, plus tiger musky last fall, you'd be catching 16" trout today vs. the 13" trout. How's that for patience?
[quote joatmon]
Does the DWR publish any science-based info on gill netting surveys? I mean ranges of lengths and weights by species?
[/quote]
While they may not "publish" gill netting results to the public, they absolutely have the data from those annual surveys. This information would be easy to obtain simply by requesting it from regional biologists that manage Scofield.
The most important information you could ask for would NOT be the lengths and weights of the fish sampled, but rather the condition factor (K factor). This is the metric that tells the biologists how the fish are doing. It is a number that can quickly let any of us know whether the fish are slowly dying, or thriving. It would be even more beneficial if we also had the K factor for the fish when they were stocked last summer / fall, and then could compare the K factor from this spring.
A K factor of less than 1 would mean the fish are in poor health.
that's the info you want.
[signature]
All fish were in the 10-13” range.
One would think there would be a fair mix of fish in sizes across the slot (15-22”), but we aren’t seeing it. Do we need to be more patient? [/quote]
Do we need to be more patient? YES
Unfortunately, we shouldn't have to wait this long. I mean, it's been 20+ years. And the current plan calls for more patience.
You have to remember that big fish (particularly trout) are the product of FAST GROWTH. When you have a system that is already at (or over!) carrying capacity, growth rates will be slow. Scofield has a lot of chubs. Too many chubs. Chubs directly compete with the trout for food -- in fact, chubs out-compete the trout. This means those trout will grow slow. Slow growth = small fish. This is why many anglers wanted Scofield poisoned. When fish are stocked into a lake after a poisoning, they experience FAST fish growth! Had the lake been poisoned last summer, then restocked with those same 11 -12" fish last fall, you'd be catching 16" trout today vs. the 13" trout. How's that for patience?
You also have to remember that fish are not mammals. Fish do not always get bigger as they age, like mammals typically do. Sometimes fish "grow" smaller. As population density increases, average size decreases. You then end up with a "stunted" population, which means that you have fish reaching sexual maturity at smaller than normal sizes.
So, all of this means that the answer to your question ("do we need to be more patient") is a definitive YES. The current management plan will not work quickly. It is a slow process and will demand patience from anglers.
The problem with anglers is that we are not patient.
Many anglers wanted Scofield poisoned. When fish are stocked into a lake after a poisoning, they experience FAST fish growth because the direct competition from chubs has been removed (or severely reduced). Had the lake been poisoned last summer, then restocked with those same 11 -12" trout, plus wipers, plus tiger musky last fall, you'd be catching 16" trout today vs. the 13" trout. How's that for patience?
[quote joatmon]
Does the DWR publish any science-based info on gill netting surveys? I mean ranges of lengths and weights by species?
[/quote]
While they may not "publish" gill netting results to the public, they absolutely have the data from those annual surveys. This information would be easy to obtain simply by requesting it from regional biologists that manage Scofield.
The most important information you could ask for would NOT be the lengths and weights of the fish sampled, but rather the condition factor (K factor). This is the metric that tells the biologists how the fish are doing. It is a number that can quickly let any of us know whether the fish are slowly dying, or thriving. It would be even more beneficial if we also had the K factor for the fish when they were stocked last summer / fall, and then could compare the K factor from this spring.
A K factor of less than 1 would mean the fish are in poor health.
that's the info you want.
[signature]