|
|
|
|
Questions and Answers About Strawberry
| Questions From Paul Anderson, West Valley City Dear Editor: I wish to thank Mr. Spateholts and commend the Division of Wildlife Resources for their willingness to respond to my concerns in a public forum. I think it is neat that the State of Utah has a division like the DWR willing to take the time and effort to contribute to the public's understanding of wildlife issues throughout the state. I also appreciated Mr. Spateholts' clarification concerning the number of fish Strawberry could hold. The 10 million figure was told to me by a DWR biologist several years ago. That being said, I was dismayed that Mr. Spateholts' carefully worded letter ignored or avoided nearly every question and issue I raised in my letter. To begin with, I have no idea what the results of an opinion poll have to do with my questions. As a matter of record, I counted myself as part of the 91% that support the current regulations for Strawberry Reservoir and the tributary streams, and as part of the 80% that support the current fishery management program with Bear Lake cutthroat trout as the primary species. But that does absolutely nothing to explain why the adult population of cutthroats dropped 58% in two short years, or whether or not such a decline was avoidable. Mr. Spateholts, on behalf of the DWR, would you please respond to the following questions and/or issues? 1. Is the DWR planning to plant smallmouth bass in Strawberry, even though you admit in your original article they "may prey heavily on the small trout fingerlings?" What considerations have been given to planting other predacious trout species, such as splake? Being sterile, they would not pose a threat to the cutthroat strain. Yet they would count towards the trout limit and reduce the harvest of cutthroats. 2. How many eggs have been harvested from trout spawning in the tributaries? How does the actual harvest compare with estimated projections? If there is there a material difference, then why? 3. Has the flow of water into the Strawberry River been restored? If not, then why not? 4. Do cattle still trample the upper waters of the Strawberry River. If so, why? 5. How much of the current decline in adult fish could have been avoidable? Surely the loss of two million fingerlings by planting them in the fall when the adult cutthroats feed in the shallows could have been avoided with better foresight and thought. 6. Finally, how do you reconcile the conflicting messages coming from the DWR and yourself? You state that fishing should be excellent for the next several years, yet that follows a decline of over half the adult trout in the lake, higher water levels spreading the fish out even more, and as you pointed out in your letter, increasing fishing pressure. The facts don't support your prediction. The same issue of UFO that printed your response reported that fishing at Strawberry was good but spotty. And then there is Mr. Archer's interesting article in the same issue. The final sentence of his article states that rainbow fishing in Strawberry will only last "the next few years, at least until chub numbers become prohibitive!!" (The exclamation points are mine.) Finally, if the fishing is going to be so excellent, why is the DWR asking that no one keep any fish they catch? Even your letter hints at a further tightening of the official restrictions governing the reservoir. Please don't misunderstand the intent of my letters. In general, I support DWR's efforts to manage Strawberry. But I am very concerned about what is happening and what the future will bring. There are some very disturbing signs and trends. Not the least was Mr. Spateholts' reluctance to address the issues raised in my original letter. If Strawberry fails to be the family fishery promised by the state, then I strongly feel that we, the public, have the right to know the full story as to why not, including whether or not the current and future problems could be avoided! After all, it is our money that DWR is spending. I am looking forward to the division's response to my questions. Sincerely, |
Answers From Bob Spateholts, DWR Strawberry Project Biologist, July 23 1998 Dear Editor: Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to Mr. Anderson’s second letter in the same issue. I will try to address his concerns: 1. The DWR is evaluating the feasability of introducing smallmouth bass into Strawberry as a biological control on chubs. The idea is that the bass would remain in the shallow water and prey upon young of the year chubs, thus keeping the population in check. Smallmouth would not compete directly with large trout, but could potentially prey upon fingerling cutthroat stocked along the shoreline. We plan to evaluate the idea this summer by stocking Bear Lake cutthroat fingerlings into Jordanelle, which has a well established smallmouth population. There are many other concerns (positive and negative) with the potential result of a smallmouth introduction into Strawberry, and we will do extensive research and hold public meetings to present our proposals. We hope to develop a plan by this time next year. Splake are not being considered for introduction in Strawberry for several reasons. Splake have very similar behavior as Bear Lake Cutthroat, and would occupy the same ecological niche and compete directly with the cutts. We do not have a source for the hundreds of thousands of splake it would take to stock Strawberry. Because splake don’t reproduce naturally, any program which included them would require substantial hatchery capacity, which is not available at this time. We would prefer to utilize our limited hatchery capacity for production of sterile rainbow trout, which do not compete with the cutts and are extremely popular with anglers as an alternative harvest. 2. We trap kokanee each fall, and have collected millions of eggs for restocking Strawberry and limited stocking of other waters. We have not had a demand for "harvesting" eggs from Strawberry Reservoir cutthroat. We did collect about half a million cutthroat eggs this year to supplement our captive broodstock production. Natural recruitment, particularly of kokanee has not yet developed to our objectives. We don’t fully understand why. Natural reproduction does, however account for 1/3-1/2 of the cutthroat in the fishery. This is a vital component of the Strawberry Reservoir fishery. 3. The Daniels Diversion still dewaters the upper Strawberry River and two of its tributaries. A pipeline will be constructed to provide the Daniels water users with water from Jordanelle Reservoir within the next few years. As soon as the pipeline is constructed, perenniel flows will be restored to Strawberry River. It will take several years after for full potential to be achieved. 4. There are many livestock allotments on Forest Service lands in Strawberry Valley. Multiple use management of these lands by the Uinta National Forest still allows sheep and cattle grazing. The DWR and the public have the opportunity to make recommendations to the Forest concerning the importance of protecting and rehabilitating riparian areas and stream habitat for fisheries. 5. Population fluctuations and loss of year classes are common occurences in large reservoir systems. With a species like the Bear Lake cutthroat, which acts as both a predator and prey, we could not avoid the eventual loss of a year class of fingerlings with the exceptionally high population of adults we had in 1995. That adult population resulted from extremely favorable survival conditions (no predators or competition) in Strawberry for the first few years following the 1990 treatment. Now that there is a population of predators out there and increasing competition from chubs and suckers, survival of fingerlings will be lower than it was in the past. We have changed the timing of fingerling stocking, and are planting more larger cutthroat in an effort to boost survival. As the population rebuilds, predation will again increase, and future year classes may have decreased survival. We try to minimize year to year fluctuations by altering management techniques, but we cannot control all of the factors which affect survival. 6. We can predict that fishing will improve because we conduct seasonal gillnet surveys which sample the 1 and 2 year old fish which will be entering the fishery in the next couple of years. Our sampling last fall and this spring produced high catch rates of the 1996 and 1997 cutthroat year classes. These, in addition to the rainbow and kokanee we stock, should result in good fishing in 1999 and 2000. It would be unrealistic to expect the high population and catch rates that existed in 1995, but we predict numbers should be greater than they are now. Additionally, fishing pressure is exceeding our management objectives, and will likely increase in the future. Our concept of "family fishery" will have to change to emphasize recreation rather than harvest. Catch and release fishing will become increasingly important if we hope to maintain the quality of our fisheries. We are not proposing a regulation change for 1999, but still encourage voluntary release of all fish caught. We welcome volunteers for a variety of field projects, such as stocking, spawning, gillnetting and stream surveys. One-on-one interaction is the best way to get out the information. Sincerely, |