05-08-2012, 04:46 PM
I don't think anyone is advocating replacing cutts with tigers at the berry. Strawberry should always be a cutt lake. But why not replace some of the bows with other species is what some of us are saying.
The young tigers would do best only in a few areas at Strawberry (rocky shorelines). Why not stock ten thousand smaller tigers (5-6 inches) in 3-5 different places in the lake instead of a few thousand larger bows (7-10 inches)? Small tigers seem to survive better than small bows due to their behavior. I''d much rather have 4 small tigers planted for every bow planted for up to 25% of the bows.
While we are at it, why not replace another 15% of the bows with sterile brookies? The heavy weeds in parts of the lake would be great for them, they are easy to catch, and would be a fun option for the novice and experts alike.
The great thing about sterile brookies and tigers is that if it doesn't work, STOP PLANTING THEM, and they will disappear.
With all the fish going into Strawberry, I wonder why isn't there a fish hatchery at Strawberry? That would seem to save money and time and improve the fishery dramatically. Just a thought but not well thought out.
I found it amusing that one strike against the tiger is that they are too hard to catch, but some anglers figure it out. So we are intentionally stocking dumb fish so novice fishermen using bait and hooking fish in their guts and gills can release them (cutts)? All the more reason to add tigers, even if they are not protected by the slot.
I also have to doubt their conclusions about tigers not doing as well as cutts at keeping chubs in check. Scofield is a horrible example. The 8 fish limit decimated all the chub eating trout and the slot came too late. The also planted as many cutts as they did tigers on Scofield yet for the most part, only the tigers are getting big on cutts. I have fished Scofield a ton and seen gill nets pulled three times. Big tigers seem to outnumber big cutts 20 to 1 and small cutts seem to outnumber the small tigers by the same numbers. Cutts seem to have a bottleneck in growth rates at Scofield directly attributed to switching over to chubs that the tigers don't seem to have a problem with.
Out of the 100% of bow weight/money spent on Berry bows now, I would say take 20-25% and spend it on smaller tigers (2-3 small tigers for every bow), and another 15-20% on sterile brookies (3-4 brookies for every bow), and take the remaining 60% for bows and still reduce the amount planted for size (instead of planting them at 7-8 inches, plant them at 9-10 inches, so maybe only 3 larger ones are planted for every 5 that are currently planted). By doing this, the exact same amount of fish are planted, more species are added, dumb anglers can still catch their cutts, and areas that don't attract cutts will likely attract these other species, and bows may actually be more plentiful as more will escape the larger cutts.
This would be my dream come true for the berry (along with including tigers in the slot) and I think it would do nothing but make the lake better for everyone.
[signature]
The young tigers would do best only in a few areas at Strawberry (rocky shorelines). Why not stock ten thousand smaller tigers (5-6 inches) in 3-5 different places in the lake instead of a few thousand larger bows (7-10 inches)? Small tigers seem to survive better than small bows due to their behavior. I''d much rather have 4 small tigers planted for every bow planted for up to 25% of the bows.
While we are at it, why not replace another 15% of the bows with sterile brookies? The heavy weeds in parts of the lake would be great for them, they are easy to catch, and would be a fun option for the novice and experts alike.
The great thing about sterile brookies and tigers is that if it doesn't work, STOP PLANTING THEM, and they will disappear.
With all the fish going into Strawberry, I wonder why isn't there a fish hatchery at Strawberry? That would seem to save money and time and improve the fishery dramatically. Just a thought but not well thought out.
I found it amusing that one strike against the tiger is that they are too hard to catch, but some anglers figure it out. So we are intentionally stocking dumb fish so novice fishermen using bait and hooking fish in their guts and gills can release them (cutts)? All the more reason to add tigers, even if they are not protected by the slot.
I also have to doubt their conclusions about tigers not doing as well as cutts at keeping chubs in check. Scofield is a horrible example. The 8 fish limit decimated all the chub eating trout and the slot came too late. The also planted as many cutts as they did tigers on Scofield yet for the most part, only the tigers are getting big on cutts. I have fished Scofield a ton and seen gill nets pulled three times. Big tigers seem to outnumber big cutts 20 to 1 and small cutts seem to outnumber the small tigers by the same numbers. Cutts seem to have a bottleneck in growth rates at Scofield directly attributed to switching over to chubs that the tigers don't seem to have a problem with.
Out of the 100% of bow weight/money spent on Berry bows now, I would say take 20-25% and spend it on smaller tigers (2-3 small tigers for every bow), and another 15-20% on sterile brookies (3-4 brookies for every bow), and take the remaining 60% for bows and still reduce the amount planted for size (instead of planting them at 7-8 inches, plant them at 9-10 inches, so maybe only 3 larger ones are planted for every 5 that are currently planted). By doing this, the exact same amount of fish are planted, more species are added, dumb anglers can still catch their cutts, and areas that don't attract cutts will likely attract these other species, and bows may actually be more plentiful as more will escape the larger cutts.
This would be my dream come true for the berry (along with including tigers in the slot) and I think it would do nothing but make the lake better for everyone.
[signature]