Really don't think they could relocate many fish out of Boulder Creek- just a personal opinion is all- just think that there would be a pretty large monetary investment to do that. Also think there's nothing wrong with it.

 

What the HE11!!! :evil:

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=10373306

Why does it always have to be about the D&^$ F(*$ cutts. I hate cutts. They don't fight as hard and they taste like SH**. I would much rather catch a brook trout and eat that then a dang cutt. We have enough cutts in other lakes and rivers why ruin something else. :evil:
I would hope that if they are really going to do this before they kill all the fish they try and relocate as many as possible to other places that could use them.

Utah is doing this on purpose. You want to know why its all about cutts? Because if Utah doesn't do something to increase the amount of cutts, they are going to get listed on the Endangered Species list. Then you can kiss all of your fishing good-bye.

There are plenty of places to catch brookies. They aren't going to relocate them either. They are going to rotenone them and pick them up and take them out for dinner. They'll probably up the limit to 8 (or get rid of it) on that part of the creek prior to poisoning it.

Utah has more species of cutts than any other state. That's just doing business here. If you don't like cutts, then you don't like fishing in Utah.

 

Utah has more species of cutts than any other state. That's just doing business here. If you don't like cutts, then you don't like fishing in Utah.[/quote]

Utah is doing this on purpose. You want to know why its all about cutts? Because if Utah doesn't do something to increase the amount of cutts, they are going to get listed on the Endangered Species list.

Endagered? Which Species?

Utah has more species of cutts than any other state. That's just doing business here. If you don't like cutts, then you don't like fishing in Utah.[/

Far from it. I like fishing in Utah. I just Hate cutts. However they do have their place, They just don't need to be in everybody of water in Utah. Just MHO.

 

He didn't say they were on the endangered species list he said they could be- which is a true statement.

If the state shows that they can deal with this on thier own terms and get the job done then they probably won't be listed. If the state doesn't do it and it does get listed then the Feds will tell the state how to deal with it. And having the natural resident species where they always were probably is the right thing to do.
There are places for Brook trout, Rainbows, browns etc etc- and I think the state does a decent job at that balancing act.

 

He didn't say they were on the endangered species list he said they could be- which is a true statement.

If the state shows that they can deal with this on thier own terms and get the job done then they probably won't be listed. If the state doesn't do it and it does get listed then the Feds will tell the state how to deal with it. And having the natural resident species where they always were probably is the right thing to do.
There are places for Brook trout, Rainbows, browns etc etc- and I think the state does a decent job at that balancing act.

I agree that they do a great job, But to just get ride of the other speices of trout in the waters I feel is wrong.

 

What would be your solution then ?

 

Cmon cuts fight great... They just save all their fighting for the net... LOL! :mrgreen: On the bright side they usually put tiger trout in with the cuts and being the tiger ***** I am the more tiger lakes the better! I just hate to see the brookies go, I am becoming fond of them lately..

 

Some people are really ignorant and don't have a clue what they are talking about... :roll:

I have fished Boulder Creek ever since I was big enough for my Dad to haul me in to the headwaters. We specifically skipped the lower reaches of the stream to get to the headwaters despite the long hike because of the CR cutts that inhabited the top end. The cutts that live in the headwaters are not only 99% pure, but indigenous and native. They were there before the native amercians before the first white settlers and long before the stunted brook trout. The best thing about these fish, though, is that they are much more colorful than any trout I have ever seen.

Removing the stunted brook trout from the lower stretches is not only a good thing but a great thing! The funny thing about people complaining about removing the stunted brookies is that these are the same people who probably have never even fished Boulder Creek or spent the time to hike into it (it is even more obvious when people say that these fish should be relocated...it really shows who has and has not been into this stream!)

Personally, I love the fact that the DWR and the Forest Service are going to eliminate all the stunted brookies in Boulder Creek because they are not only worse fighting fish than the cutts that will replace them, but they are so skinny that you can't even eat them. Not only that, but now instead of having to hike all the way into the headwaters to fish for decent healthy fish, I can fish the lower stretches that are only inhabited by skinny big-headed brookies.

 

nailed it W2U!


This is a good thing. Brook trout are a bad mix in Boulder Creek. They rarely grow over 6". Cutts have an opportunity to grow larger, as long as the overpopulated brook trout are removed.

This is a good project that should have been done years ago -- but better late than never!



The alternative is to not do the project, and let some group like the Nature Conservancy group sue to list cutts under the Endangered Species Act. Everyone complaining now would truly have reason to complain if that happened.

good job DWR and FS -- get it done!

 

clkspencer- First off, have you fished the Boulders before? Second, have you caught a native CR cutt? And third- are you mostly referring to Strawberry cutts when you say "they don't fight?"

Most folks who have fished Boulder mountain will be able to tell you that the Brookies have more or less eaten themselves out of house and home down there. In the 80's and early 90's there were WAAAAAY too many brookies planted there. Subsequently, most of the lakes that hold fish without substantial winterkill or angler pressure end up plumb full of snakey-bodied fish with big fins and heads. This is the reason why the limit on Brook trout went up...eliminate competition for food, and the fish get bigger.

The native cutts, while maybe not your favorite fish, are the ones that belong there. Like others mentioned, I'd rather have a different fish to catch than have the area closed to fishing altogether. Native fish fight like crazy. They eat different things down there than the fish at the Berry do. A lot of folks don't like the BL cutts because they think they don't really fight hard. I guess its just a preference thing, but don't think that one strain of cutt is the same as any other. There is a difference, and I can attest to this.

Personally, I have always love the Brookies on Boulder. But I will concede that this is the right thing to do. The native species belong there, not some foreign species from Canada and the Northeast. I have always dreamed of fishing for huge cutts like we hear about in pioneer stories from the 1800s, and the direction being taken by the DWR brings us a huge step in that direction.

 

Never fished Boulder creek, however, any time you can keep control of your fish and wildlife in the hands of your state people, the better off you are. Example, the wolves in Wyo.. We have to deal with the US Wildlife Service on how to manage them. You don't want to get in that kind of mess!

 

Endagered? Which Species?

Actually, in the past few years, both the Bonneville cutts and the Colorado cutts have been the topic of law suits by green nuts to get them listed under the Endangered Species Act. In other states fruit cakes have sued for Yellowstone Cutts. Greenback cutts have been sued on in Colorado. Lahonton Cutts are already on the list as well as Paiute Cutts.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=21766&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

Far from it. I like fishing in Utah. I just Hate cutts. However they do have their place, They just don't need to be in everybody of water in Utah. Just MHO.

No one is saying that they should be in every body of water in Utah. But, the range of all cutts needs to be expanded to maintain their status as non-listed under the ESA. That means places like Boulder Creek are going to have to be turned into cutthroat streams.

What I'm telling you is that Utah means cutthroat fishing. If you hate fishing for cutts, you hate fishing in Utah. I'm sorry say so, but Utah is all about cutts and always will be.

Do you know what happens if these fish get listed? All fishing for these fish will be shut down. That means any water where these fish live will be off limits. That includes places where cutts are known to live with other species. ALL fishing will be closed in any water where any cutt is known to live.

Do you see how hating cutts is hating fishing? You get rid of cutts, you get rid of fishing.

 

People are throwing in all sorts of opionons around so here is mine.
I have caught plenty of the Colorado Cuts, and have yet to see one more colorful than a brook trout, they do have unique colors though. They taste bad and they don't fight hard either. I have fished boulder creek, glad they are going to do something with our money. I do hate cutthroats that is why I don't fish for them but I still like Utah's fishing. especially the Brook Trout. Brook Trout fishing has been really good for about 6 years I hope the DWR can keep it going.

 

What I'm telling you is that Utah means cutthroat fishing. If you hate fishing for cutts, you hate fishing in Utah.

Funny I love fishing and hate the cutts. I sure as heck don't make it a point to fish for them. If I catch one its because I am fishing for something else.

Do you know what happens if these fish get listed? All fishing for these fish will be shut down. That means any water where these fish live will be off limits. That includes places where cutts are known to live with other species. ALL fishing will be closed in any water where any cutt is known to live.

Not true. Several other spieces of fish are listed and yet you still get to fish for the other spieces of fish in those waters.

First off, have you fished the Boulders before? Second, have you caught a native CR cutt?

Heck yes I have fished it. I go down just about every other year. Most likely I have never caught a native CR.cutt at least on the boulders. Its possible that I have and never new it somewhere else. I go down for the brooks, same reason I go to other places for the brooks.

I have always dreamed of fishing for huge cutts like we hear about in pioneer stories from the 1800s, and the direction being taken by the DWR brings us a huge step in that direction.

In the 1800's there were also giant cutts in Utah lake. So should they kill off all the non native fish that have been in the lake since the late 1800's and early to mid 1900's and do the same thing?

I don't care if they want to add more cutts to the boulders, I just don't think you have to kill everything else there. I know it has alot of brooks but do they have to get rid of them all?

 

Some people are really ignorant and don't have a clue what they are talking about... :roll:

I have fished Boulder Creek ever since I was big enough for my Dad to haul me in to the headwaters. We specifically skipped the lower reaches of the stream to get to the headwaters despite the long hike because of the CR cutts that inhabited the top end. The cutts that live in the headwaters are not only 99% pure, but indigenous and native. They were there before the native amercians before the first white settlers and long before the stunted brook trout. The best thing about these fish, though, is that they are much more colorful than any trout I have ever seen.

Removing the stunted brook trout from the lower stretches is not only a good thing but a great thing! The funny thing about people complaining about removing the stunted brookies is that these are the same people who probably have never even fished Boulder Creek or spent the time to hike into it (it is even more obvious when people say that these fish should be relocated...it really shows who has and has not been into this stream!)

Personally, I love the fact that the DWR and the Forest Service are going to eliminate all the stunted brookies in Boulder Creek because they are not only worse fighting fish than the cutts that will replace them, but they are so skinny that you can't even eat them. Not only that, but now instead of having to hike all the way into the headwaters to fish for decent healthy fish, I can fish the lower stretches that are only inhabited by skinny big-headed brookies.

Well put.
When the facts are known, the truth comes out

 

Funny I love fishing and hate the cutts. I sure as heck don't make it a point to fish for them. If I catch one its because I am fishing for something else.

Then you aren't understanding what I'm telling you.

Not true. Several other spieces of fish are listed and yet you still get to fish for the other spieces of fish in those waters.

It depends on the degree of listing of the fish. If a fish is listed as "threatened," then yes, you are right. You can still fish there. If it is listed as endangered, then no. Fishing is closed.

Guess which listing these groups are after?

 

It depends on the degree of listing of the fish. If a fish is listed as "threatened," then yes, you are right. You can still fish there. If it is listed as endangered, then no. Fishing is closed.

Still only half true. The enviorment in which it is found would also have to be endangered.

 

I say get rid of the cutts and brookies. They are both pretty fish but really not worth catching. Replace them with tigers and browns and kokes, fish that actually eat well and fight more than a wet sock.

 

Some of you are arguing about the fighting prowess of a 6 inch brookie versus a six inch cutt?

 

As folks can see by my site name I love brook trout. But I can also attest that the DWR is doing an outstanding job on managing Boulder Mountain. Boulder Creek is full of sickly 6" skinny brook trout. In it's headwaters lurk healthy beautiful CO cutts. I'm not a cutt fan by any means, but let's look at it in a logical manner. If they remove the stunted brook trout that are damaging the native cutts to improve the fishery and at the same time help keep the cutts off the endangered species list, we all win. If the hippies get their way, they'll sue to get the cutts on an endangered species list and shut down the whole drainage to fishing and let the feds get their noses in it. The only lakes and streams on Boulder Mountain that have been poisoned are ones that had histories of stunted brookies. All the trophy brook trout lakes have been left alone. Relax guys, Boulder Creek is being improved! I don't think any of us want to see a drainage fenced in and off-limits to sport fishing due to some green guys! Never fear, the brook trout of Boulder Mountain are here to stay. It's history as a brook trout mecca and trophy destination are much too imbedded in the culture of Utah fisherman.

 

[
Heck yes I have fished it. I go down just about every other year. Most likely I have never caught a native CR.cutt at least on the boulders. Its possible that I have and never new it somewhere else. I go down for the brooks, same reason I go to other places for the brooks.

I don't care if they want to add more cutts to the boulders, I just don't think you have to kill everything else there. I know it has alot of brooks but do they have to get rid of them all?

1) Sorry, but I really question whether you have fished Boulder Creek. Just out of curiosity, where did you access it from? Where did you fish it? Earlier in this thread, you talked about the DWR relocating brook trout from Boulder Creek...how is the DWR going to get the fish from Boulder Creek to be moved?

2) The DWR isn't planning on eliminating all of the brook trout from Boulder Mountain...not even close. Instead of spouting off about something about you obviously know very little, how about reading up on the subject: http://wildlife.utah.gov/cutthroat/BCT/ ... -et-al.pdf

 

It depends on the degree of listing of the fish. If a fish is listed as "threatened," then yes, you are right. You can still fish there. If it is listed as endangered, then no. Fishing is closed.

Still only half true. The enviorment in which it is found would also have to be endangered.

No, that's not how the ESA works. You are talking about something different.

The Bush administration said species could only be listed under the ESA if their population was threatened in some part of their CURRENT range.

These folks are arguing that that is an incorrect application of the ESA and they want the species listed if their population is struggling ANYWHERE in its HISTORIC range.

I know what I'm talking about with the ESA. I'm not telling you half-truths. I've read the briefs, I've read the decisions. Did you read the other thread I posted?

 

Dodger -- are you truly against improving a fishery?


I'm not concerned about the Feds closing the stream to fishing. My concern is more with litigation, wasted money, wasted time, and wasted efforts. The UDWR is required to continue it's efforts with native cutthroat trout restoration work. Boulder Creek is a stream with a historic population of native cutthroat. These cutthroat have been living in the upper parts of Boulder Creek for thousands of years -- they were there before whiteman started keeping records and have been "untouched" by competitive species thanks to natural barriers. Below these barriers brook trout have moved in and taken over the stream. The habitat is too good -- they continue to reproduce to the point that the fish are extremely small. If you remove the brook trout and replace them with native cutthroat -- which have natural systems in place to prevent them from overpopulating -- you improve the fishery. If you don't do it, the Feds step in and take over the management of the fishery. Now, who would you rather have managing the Boulder Creek drainage on Boulder Mountain: Utah DWR? Or Federal Fish and Wildlife?

Personally, I'd rather see the local guys that have been working on that mountain for years, and years vs. a bunch of people from D.C.


But, politics aside, the project will improve the fishery. How can anyone be against that?

 

Boulder Creek might be a good place for the CRC. I hate the over population and stunting of Brookies, and wish someone would or could do a better job of managing them (although in my fifty+ years of fishing the Boulder, the past ten have been good). I dream about a trophy quality Brook. They are my fish of choice.

I am not impressed the the CRC (fight, size or table fare). I do appreciate the State keeping the feds our of the mix. Most of the lakes and impounds I visit that that have Cuts in also have Tigers. The Tigers have become a good option (in the absence of Brookies) for some of our favorite, former Brook fisheries.

I hope someone doesn't loose there mind and eradicate all the Brookies on the Boulder. It is a world class Brook fishery.

 

I hope someone doesn't loose there mind and eradicate all the Brookies on the Boulder. It is a world class Brook fishery.

I agree with this 100%

I don't like the idea of converting Boulder to a strictly CRC fishery, but I believe in some of the waters, its a prudent decision to make. I love catching brookies, and would be pretty bummed if someone decided to pull the plug on all of them.