Jump to content


Photo

Jones Gap State Park


11 replies to this topic

#1 mattknepley

mattknepley
  • NANFA Member
  • Smack-dab between the Savannah and the Saluda.

Posted 17 April 2013 - 07:50 PM

Surprised my 6 year old with our annual daddy-daughter day today. Instead of leaving her at school, I pulled past the drop off and we headed for the mountains. These "dates", and those her older sister and I share, are always outdoor oriented, usually hiking with a side of some water-based activity. This time around was all "crick stompin'". We met the southern end of the Blue Ridge Mountains at Jones Gap State Park, a short way north of Greenville, South Carolina. It's probably my favorite SC state park.

I intended we'd chase fish in the Middle Saluda River, upstream from the ranger's station. But there was a school group occupying a good chunk of real estate there, and there were at least two dozen pairs of wellies (rubber boots) and various sampling equipment lined up along the shore, so it was immediately obvious our plans were in for a little change. I introduced myself to the ranger at the station, just to let him know a highly-skilled team of collectors armed with buckets and a dipnet would be fishing around. I had my fishing license and newly acquired State of SC issued Scientific Collection Permit on hand. The ranger said we are always welcome to sample, but to keep anything we'd need a special permit issued specifically through the state park system, and that he'd never seen a scientific collection permit before. Otherwise, to fish I'd need a license, and apparently, no credentials at all just to sample with the dipnet. But no collecting without yet another permit. Welcome to the world of trying to be legal! :rolleyes: It was no big deal, though, as we had no intentions of keeping anything anyway, and the ranger was very polite about the whole thing.

We decided to hit the river right next to where we had parked, and work up or downstream. The whole shebang was a success before we even got wet; a playful chipmunk and more tiger swallowtail butterflies than I have ever seen before, dozens of them, greeted us on our way back to parking lot. After admiring them, we finally hit the water. Despite our intentions of covering a good chunk of water, we spent our entire time within 100 feet of where we entered! Not that we had much success in the fish department, but we had a ton of fun. The highlights are below.


P4170442.JPG
These are just a few of the tiger swallowtails. Don't know what they were feeding on, but they sure were enthusiastic about it!

P4170474.JPG
Some pretty flowers we only found growing right next to the river.

P4170483.JPG P4170510.JPG
My beautiful and capable crick stompin' assistant! The water was surprisingly warm. We spent the next three hours after these photos getting rather wet, without getting cold.

P4170465.JPG
We turned up a couple larval salamanders. This guy was interesting in that he seemed to have adapted just fine to only having three legs!

P4170457.JPG P4170459.JPG P4170464.JPG
I found these aquatic nymphs fascinating. I'm guessing they represent two different species of stonefly. I think the two light colored ones are different instars (or whatever stoneflies have) of the same species, and that wild marbled one is a different one. They were taken in riffles. There was no shortage of aquatic nymphs of various sizes. Fish food! And how about their size, relative to the salamander?!

I had been hoping for darters, or cold-water shiners, but this is who we found...
P4170469.JPG P4170471.JPG P4170481.JPG
Not that I'm complaining. Blueheads are neat. And until I saw these pictures I'd never realized just how big their mouths are, or how interesting the structure of their nostril "flaps" are, or how complex the coloration of their eyes.

These following two pictures are horrible, but the best I could do on this guy. My daughter netted it in a shallow slackwater area. I'm wondering if that dorsal spine is diagnostic of anything, even in so young a fish.
P4170477.JPG P4170479.JPG
Any guesses?

And lastly, this bad boy. He was pulled out of the plunge area immediately behind a large boulder. The water was very swift and tumultuous in that spot. I'm guessing he's a third type of stonefly.
P4170495.JPG

Shortly after this picture was taken a good ol' mountain thunderstorm rolled in, so we wisely rolled out. Not much in the line of fish, but I enjoyed what there was. The nymphs were really interesting, and beautiful in their own way. Maybe sometime soon I can hit the mountains again with a couple Palmetto-ers who actually know what they're doing. (Dustin, Tigerfan?) I'd love to turn up something other than Nocomis leptocephalus!
Matt Knepley
"No thanks, a third of a gopher would merely arouse my appetite..."

#2 Guest_Dustin_*

Guest_Dustin_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 April 2013 - 07:57 PM

We may be going the weekend after this coming one. I f we do, I will let you know. The unknown fish is a juvenile trout.

#3 mattknepley

mattknepley
  • NANFA Member
  • Smack-dab between the Savannah and the Saluda.

Posted 17 April 2013 - 08:18 PM

That'd be great, Dustin, but as it stands now I'm working the 27th and Michael Wolfe and I have plans to chase Christmas darters in Edgefield County the 28th. But please keep me in the loop, I'd love a trip like that anytime I can swing it!

Also, thanks for the id on the juvenile fish. Do you think it's a brook trout? I thought "brookie" as soon as I saw that dorsal, but that black line would follow a white one, and be more characteristic of their pectoral, ventral, and anal fins. I wasn't sure there was an adipose fin either, so I really had no clue what it was. To get a native trout would be really special! (My avatar ought to give my favorite fish away.) And even if it's "just" a wild rainbow (don't think there are browns there) it's still pretty cool!
Matt Knepley
"No thanks, a third of a gopher would merely arouse my appetite..."

#4 Guest_Kanus_*

Guest_Kanus_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 April 2013 - 09:38 PM

Man those are some great shots of some really impressive stonefly and mayfly nymphs. And I second the juvie trout ID, though I can't tell what kind either.

#5 mattknepley

mattknepley
  • NANFA Member
  • Smack-dab between the Savannah and the Saluda.

Posted 18 April 2013 - 05:59 AM

Thanks, Derek. I'm no entomologist, which is (are) the mayflies. I notice now the structure of the legs of the last one pictured is different than the first ones.
Matt Knepley
"No thanks, a third of a gopher would merely arouse my appetite..."

#6 Guest_gerald_*

Guest_gerald_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 April 2013 - 09:48 AM

The flatter stoneflies with wide head look like Acroneuria or a related genus. The bigger, longer guy with small head is Pteronarcys. Salamanders are most likely southern two-lined. Flowers are bluets (Houstonia).

#7 Guest_fundulus_*

Guest_fundulus_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 April 2013 - 11:53 AM

The bluets are growing together with a lot of liverworts, so it must be immediately next to water flow.

#8 Guest_Usil_*

Guest_Usil_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 April 2013 - 12:09 PM

Nice pictures and report. Thanks.

#9 Guest_sbtgrfan_*

Guest_sbtgrfan_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 April 2013 - 02:12 PM

Cool stuff.

About the trout: It's hard to tell from the pics and hard to tell at that age anyway. Realistically, it could be any of the three, Brown, Rainbow, or Brook, but I think it's more likely a Brown or Rainbow in that area. At that size, their coloration isn't going to be developed completely yet so an ID is difficult. Also, at that size, I would guess it's a fairly recent spawning. Browns and Brookies spawn late fall (Oct-Nov), whereas Rainbows spawn late winter - early spring (Feb-Mar), I'd almost venture to say based on size it's a Rainbow. I'm just guessing though.

Edited by sbtgrfan, 18 April 2013 - 02:34 PM.


#10 mattknepley

mattknepley
  • NANFA Member
  • Smack-dab between the Savannah and the Saluda.

Posted 18 April 2013 - 07:09 PM

Thanks, all! I love having a crack biology staff on hand to learn me on this stuff! It's a great feeling to be able to appreciate something just because "it is", and then be able to develop an understanding of it as well. I really do enjoy that about this forum.

Fundulus- you're right, they were smack next to the river.

Stephen- I bet you're right, too, thinking on it. The brookies don't fare too well with those other trout around. Guess I'll have to go back north of Walhalla if I want to see any brooks again.

And now if you'll excuse me, Gerald has me off on a stonefly identification hunt!
Matt Knepley
"No thanks, a third of a gopher would merely arouse my appetite..."

#11 Guest_NativeLover_*

Guest_NativeLover_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 April 2013 - 03:53 PM

So what's the difference in a collection permit and fishing license? Is a fishing license not sufficient for collecting and keeping natives in SC? Thanks.

#12 mattknepley

mattknepley
  • NANFA Member
  • Smack-dab between the Savannah and the Saluda.

Posted 19 April 2013 - 04:38 PM

That is a good question, NativeLover. As you prowl around here you will find that "being legal" isn't always as straight forward as it sounds. Or as logical.

Generally, yes, a fishing license is sufficient to collect fish in SC. It is my understanding, however, that a scientific collection permit, usually issued to people working under the aegis of an educational institution, government, or maybe a large company, does allow for leeway to work in waters otherwise off-limits. It also affords the ability to keep some species otherwise off-limits, as long as they fall within the wording of the permit.

For example, the trout waters of SC generally prohibit any collecting. (There was a loophole last year that allows collecting through June, but it's definitely an anomaly and not expected to be repeated.) My fishing license lets me angle for sportfish in trout waters, but not collect non-game species. My permit, however, specifies the Saluda River sub-basin (trout waters) as one of my study areas and in theory opens those waters up to me. Providing I am a responsible collector... As I noted in my write-up though, the park ranger didn't like it; different jurisdictions have different approaches.... Because there are many fish in SC that only reside in the mountain streams, I couldn't legally get specimens of those fishes, no matter how plentiful, from my home state without being able to chase after them in the trout waters. Nor could I possess, transport, or keep them. So therefore, that permit does allow me to collect and keep fishes that by dictates of their home waters would be out of reach for me otherwise.

I am very new to navigating the legalities of native fish collecting, too. So if anyone has additional insight, experience, or corrections to my post to make- please do!
Matt Knepley
"No thanks, a third of a gopher would merely arouse my appetite..."



Reply to this topic



  


1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users