Jump to content


lake trout/ lake char


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_Troutgirl_*

Guest_Troutgirl_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 October 2009 - 01:16 PM

Sockeye Salmon used as feeder fish? that sounds odd.

As for stocking lake trout, aren't they one of the most dangerous native fish to introduce into waterways without a natural population? Just ask the sunapee trout and the cutthroat trout in yellowstone lake.

On second thought never ask a trout anything, the stuck up fish never answer. :)


You have a point there. Lakers are vortex predators and love smaller trout. Tennessee, just keeps stocking food, I mean Rainbows too.... Chilhowee is a small lake and the Lakers can't escape to another locale to reek havoc. Besides, Tennessee can always stock Huchen to control the Lakers... :biggrin:

I fish Chilhowee quite a bit and the number of Rainbows I catch has gone down. I'm so sure that their cousins are eating them. Well, the lake is a fun, little science project. An' I think they should stock mo' tasty rainbows... :biggrin:

#22 Guest_MountainWader_*

Guest_MountainWader_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 October 2009 - 09:10 PM

I hope this isn't too far off the topic, but speaking of Chilhowee, I recently read in "Fly-Fishing Guide to the Great Smoky Mountains" by Don Kirk that at a certain time every year, Chilhowee's brown's move from the lake, up into Abrams Creek to spawn. He states that the brown's gather at the mouth for a couple days before moving up the "creek" to spawn. Who knows, I recently saw what I thought was a BIG carp under the 129 bridge, only to get a better look, and find out it was a bass!!! I've got a feeling that Chilhowee has more than a few suprises swimming around in it.

#23 Guest_Troutgirl_*

Guest_Troutgirl_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 October 2009 - 05:34 PM

I hope this isn't too far off the topic, but speaking of Chilhowee, I recently read in "Fly-Fishing Guide to the Great Smoky Mountains" by Don Kirk that at a certain time every year, Chilhowee's brown's move from the lake, up into Abrams Creek to spawn. He states that the brown's gather at the mouth for a couple days before moving up the "creek" to spawn. Who knows, I recently saw what I thought was a BIG carp under the 129 bridge, only to get a better look, and find out it was a bass!!! I've got a feeling that Chilhowee has more than a few suprises swimming around in it.


I've never, ever caught a Brown Trout in Chilhowee. I caught thousands of trout at Chilhowee too. I never caught one of the Ohrid Trout either. Rainbow Trout do gather around Abrams Creek in the fall and winter. There's so many strains of Rainbows. They're not gonna all spawn at once. Some will wanna do fall, some winter.

I've yet to talk to anybody who knows where the Lakers might gather to spawn or attempt to in Chilhowee. Lakers take the better part of a decade to mature sexually. There could of been some Laker spawning in the last couple of years? Lakers like 15-20 feet of water over rock for spawning. They might move into Abrahms Creek when the water cools enough? Trout spawning in Abrahms may not amount to much. That creek is so full of Waterdogs, which love fish eggs, that most of what's laid probably gets consumed by Waterdogs and other fish. The Walleyes must go up into Abrahms too? I don't know where else they'd go. Abrahms and the other smaller creeks are the logical choices that are shallow enough and the bottom might be rocky enough...?

The Lakers have a cove up in Watauga where they gather in November for a love-in. As to wheather their eggs hatch there, who knows?

#24 Guest_ashtonmj_*

Guest_ashtonmj_*
  • Guests

Posted 18 October 2009 - 07:09 PM

Your TWRA Region 4 fishery biologists would be whom to ask, especially considering they've had TTU students studying reservior trout fisheries the past four years. This isn't really a fishing website, and you have a place to get your answers. They have a nice website, considering the other regions don't really have anything.

#25 Guest_Troutgirl_*

Guest_Troutgirl_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 October 2009 - 02:35 PM

Your TWRA Region 4 fishery biologists would be whom to ask, especially considering they've had TTU students studying reservior trout fisheries the past four years. This isn't really a fishing website, and you have a place to get your answers. They have a nice website, considering the other regions don't really have anything.


I'll take a gander at TWRA's sites and see what I get. I do know that Trout usually evade the TWRA when they're doing electric shock surveys. I don't know what else they do.

#26 Guest_Gambusia_*

Guest_Gambusia_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 January 2010 - 12:42 PM

Dredging up this old thread because from what I understand now the TWRA is putting lakers now in South Holston Reservoir.

#27 Guest_DocEsox_*

Guest_DocEsox_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 May 2010 - 02:53 PM

If you want to study one of the great fiascos of fish (mis)management look at Flathead Lake in Montana. A very large, deep natural lake natively populated by westslope cutthroat and bull trout (s. confluentus). A hundred or so years ago the insidious "they" decided to start adding non-native fish....lake trout were put in, then Great Lakes whitefish....then kokanee salmon as a forage base. Suprisingly enough there was a pretty good equilibrium achieved, although the cutthroat numbers were declining. But the kokanee thrived and became a great forage base for lake trout and the native bull trout. So this fairly stable "managed" ecosystem continues for several decades until some unnamed fisheries biologist for the state decided in the 70's to introduce mysis shrimp as a "better" forage base (than the smaller daphnia) in lakes upriver from the Flathead. Much to their surprise (haha) the mysis worked their way downstream and invaded Flathead Lake. Turns out in a deepwater system like Flathead, the mysis shrimp became direct competitors with the kokanee for the natural daphnia forage base.....the mysis migrated up and down in the water column at times which made them unavailable to the kokanee. Within 5 years the kokanne runs, which numbered in the millions, were gone. Turns out the bull trout (a threatened species) could not utilize the mysis shrimp but the lake trout could. So now the bull trout numbers have crashed and the lakers are so prevalent the limit is 30 lakers A DAY, under 30" and 1 over 36". Attempts to reestablish kokanne were abject failures. The lake trout spread upstream and invaded Swan Lake which will probably be a death toll again for one of the few very healthy bull trout lakes left in the US.

Our need to play God with the fisheries has led to the virtual destruction of any native runs of salmon in the United States. Most major water systems have no resemblance to their aboriginal state....what a mess. Fortunately in Alaska we have so far decided not to introduce non native species but we seem to be screwing up the salmon runs with our belief we can manage nature with science........

Obviously a sore spot with me,

Brian

#28 Guest_bumpylemon_*

Guest_bumpylemon_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 May 2010 - 06:27 PM

If you want to study one of the great fiascos of fish (mis)management look at Flathead Lake in Montana. A very large, deep natural lake natively populated by westslope cutthroat and bull trout (s. confluentus). A hundred or so years ago the insidious "they" decided to start adding non-native fish....lake trout were put in, then Great Lakes whitefish....then kokanee salmon as a forage base. Suprisingly enough there was a pretty good equilibrium achieved, although the cutthroat numbers were declining. But the kokanee thrived and became a great forage base for lake trout and the native bull trout. So this fairly stable "managed" ecosystem continues for several decades until some unnamed fisheries biologist for the state decided in the 70's to introduce mysis shrimp as a "better" forage base (than the smaller daphnia) in lakes upriver from the Flathead. Much to their surprise (haha) the mysis worked their way downstream and invaded Flathead Lake. Turns out in a deepwater system like Flathead, the mysis shrimp became direct competitors with the kokanee for the natural daphnia forage base.....the mysis migrated up and down in the water column at times which made them unavailable to the kokanee. Within 5 years the kokanne runs, which numbered in the millions, were gone. Turns out the bull trout (a threatened species) could not utilize the mysis shrimp but the lake trout could. So now the bull trout numbers have crashed and the lakers are so prevalent the limit is 30 lakers A DAY, under 30" and 1 over 36". Attempts to reestablish kokanne were abject failures. The lake trout spread upstream and invaded Swan Lake which will probably be a death toll again for one of the few very healthy bull trout lakes left in the US.

Our need to play God with the fisheries has led to the virtual destruction of any native runs of salmon in the United States. Most major water systems have no resemblance to their aboriginal state....what a mess. Fortunately in Alaska we have so far decided not to introduce non native species but we seem to be screwing up the salmon runs with our belief we can manage nature with science........

Obviously a sore spot with me,

Brian



that was some good insight. i wanted to say good story...but in reality its a horrible story. i hate the "they"

#29 Guest_DocEsox_*

Guest_DocEsox_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 May 2010 - 09:06 PM

My knowledge of the Flathead Lake fiasco is very personal as my family started vacationing there in the mid 1960's...then my parents built a house and retired on the north end of the lake and still reside there. I've watched the lake go through this manmade disaster. And, of course, at this point there is no reversing the problem. Although the state of Montana is tying to be proactive now in maintaining native trouts. Currently they are in the middle of "killing" all the nonnative trout in all mountain lakes and tributaries to the south fork of the Flathead River....which is the last big bastion of pure westslope cutthroat trout.....and a healthy population of bull trout.

Brian

#30 Guest_ashtonmj_*

Guest_ashtonmj_*
  • Guests

Posted 01 May 2010 - 09:55 PM

A slew of dams had just as much to do with the loss of native fishes from the west as did non-native introductions. Oh and that whole water appropration and diversion to agricultural lands thing. In fact, those dams were in place well before the introduction of non-native fishes, which were stocked because reservoirs were created and recreational fisheries were now available. So before everyone jumps on the "those" scientists bashing bandwagon realize that fisheries science 30-50+ years ago was in its infancy and quite different in many aspects from today. Thought I'd throw in 0.02 on a long quiet topic. I'd like to see a show of hands how many people here didn't start by fishing for non-native fish or in recreational fisheries before we start griping about actions of a few decades ago. There is no doubting that there are many examples of fisheries poorly managed throughout the country, and have impacted our native species and their ecosystems, but it is what it is, in the past. No one here has a time machine and native species conservation has made leaps and bounds. We can only learn from our mistakes and hopefully prevent them from happening again.

Edited by ashtonmj, 01 May 2010 - 09:57 PM.


#31 Guest_mikez_*

Guest_mikez_*
  • Guests

Posted 02 May 2010 - 10:31 AM

A slew of dams had just as much to do with the loss of native fishes from the west as did non-native introductions. Oh and that whole water appropration and diversion to agricultural lands thing. In fact, those dams were in place well before the introduction of non-native fishes, which were stocked because reservoirs were created and recreational fisheries were now available. So before everyone jumps on the "those" scientists bashing bandwagon realize that fisheries science 30-50+ years ago was in its infancy and quite different in many aspects from today. Thought I'd throw in 0.02 on a long quiet topic. I'd like to see a show of hands how many people here didn't start by fishing for non-native fish or in recreational fisheries before we start griping about actions of a few decades ago. There is no doubting that there are many examples of fisheries poorly managed throughout the country, and have impacted our native species and their ecosystems, but it is what it is, in the past. No one here has a time machine and native species conservation has made leaps and bounds. We can only learn from our mistakes and hopefully prevent them from happening again.



My hand's raised on the non-native recreational topic.
Raised as a kid by the one time president of the Catskill Mt TU chapter, I was taught that trout were the ultimate fish and even in the 60s we were doing stream improvments, even stocking eggs - always brown trout. I don't believe I ever caught a native trout in the Catskils to this day.et
I'm often conflicted between love of true native fish and a passion for angling. Yellow perch, pumpkinseeds, pickeral. Thats my whole array of inland native sport fish. May as well take up golf. :blink:

Without doubt, dams are far and away the worst threat in most inland rivers and stream. Good luck finding even the tiniest trickle in New England without a 300 year old silted in dam or two. Can't bring back the brook trout till we bring back the brooks.
The Clean Water Act and reams of subsequent EPA regs have acheived nothing short of miraculous improvements in stream quality but still nobody wants to knock down the useless old dams. Baby steps.
State of Maine made a bold move with the removal of the Edwards dam. Not everyone loved the idea. Small mouth bass and brown trout will be subjected to striped bass predation. A native eating the exotics and people raised cain. Sport fishing is a mainstay of the economy of the area.
I haven't heard any recent studies of native recovery after the dam removal but my own observations and those of trusted family members says that the number of sturgeon we see near the mouth of the Kennebec is much more than any of us remember. These are adult fish, 8 feet long, much too old to have directly benifited from the dam's removal, but apparently returning to the river to take advantage of the greatly increased availability of spawning habitat.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users