- This topic has 19 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 19 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
-
Grand Valley on the Olympic Peninsula would probably be exactly what you’re looking for.
This destination is no secret–you will almost certainly have company.
To get there, take the forest service road from the Hurricaine Ridge visitor’s center to Obstruction Point trailhead. The hike is about 4 miles and downhill most of the way. If it isn’t thawed already, it will be soon.
If you have more questions, feel free to ask. (Searching “Grand Valley” on most hiking websites will yeild at least several good trip reports).
Andrew
-
“You're in the southern part of the state, right? Head up to Indian Heaven. That is one of the few areas where brookies don't overpopulate lakes and several of the lakes there have very nice ones. Some are managed for more than one species, so don't give up right away if you catch something else. Waptus Lake has some very nice brookies along with rainbow and bull trout. There are a ton of lakes full of stunted little brookies I'd be happy to send you to if you like to catch lots and lots of them.”
-
Brian,
Can you tell me why the take on brookies is not more liberal on some of these lakes? In particular, the game regs over the last decade or two have moved to specific regs for specific lakes – intensive management. So why not a liberal 20, 30 or even “no limit” on some of these lakes to clean them up? From years ago, I believe there was one up on Nason Ridge (Merrel I think it was) but there was not enough recreational use up there at that time to make the regulations work. It was not a popular area though I do not know the state of things today.
In all seriousness, I love fishing for brookies, even small ones. I do not want to see them removed from the lakes they are in. But I would like to see them managed to provide a bit larger fish. And working with the public and liberal limits seems to be a rather cost effective way to get the populations under control. Especially in high recreational use areas. It may take a bit of liberal advertisement too as in freely providing information for these lakes on forums like this.
I could image a threshold where the number in the limits would be adjusted to reach a balance with quantity verses quality. But a slot limit may work there too.
The esthetics for me are largely in the colors, lack of scales and excellent eating. Blue halos, red spots, orange bellies, bright white on black fin markings… there is not a prettier fish.
Also, my old Wildlander username is under an old email. Is there anyway I can get the email changed to the new one so I can change the password.
Ken
Ellensburg, WA
ken@wildlanders.com -
Hi Ken,
They did have increased limits on a handful of brookie lakes, but they had no effect on the populations. Because they weren’t doing any good they dropped them for pamphlet simplification. There just aren’t enough people who want to go in and catch that many fish in these really high population lakes to have an effect.
I switched the email on on your old user name. Let me know if you still have trouble.
-
I’ve heard some rumors about Tiger Muskie possible being planted into some high lakes to help control the brookie population.
-
-
-
@Anonymous wrote:
I’ve heard some rumors about Tiger Muskie possible being planted into some high lakes to help control the brookie population.
This has gone from rumor to reality. Here’s a great newspaper article about this exciting project.
-
Try Wildcat Lake. Its located in ONP up the Dose. Its loaded with them.
-
-
Crossing the river to get to the old Muscot trail can be a problem early in the season but after mid July its easy. Once across its not that bad.
-
Read the article on the tigermuskie experiment in a high lake and was wondering if the intent is to rid the lake of the brook trout or to simply control the brook trout population? From the sounds of it they are leaning toward elimination of the brook trout. I definately think something needs to be done about stunted trout lakes (cutthroat & brook) and am excited to see how this experiment plays out, but I would hate to see the brook trout eliminated from the high lakes environment. In lakes where they aren’t stunted they make for a great trout fishery. The brook trout is a beautiful fish and also one of the tastiest of the trout. Not to mention for a trouter like me, the diversity is always a treat. I enjoy hiking to different lakes for different trout. Just a thought
-
-
@smckean wrote:
There is no plan, and never will be, to eliminate all brookies from the high Cascades. TM’s would be used in VERY select situations. BTW, results from this experiment are likely 10 years out — perhaps longer.
We haven’t tried TM in CA, but browns were dropped into various stunted brookie fisheries. What I’ve been told was that they had minimal effect on the brookie population, but provided an occasional thrill for folks who would end up catching a lunker brown out of a lake long known for small brookies. Hopefully the TM experiment will be more successful.
-
Hopefully the TM experiment will be more successful.
A similar test with TMs produced good results (subjective assessment) in a couple of Idaho mountain lakes. That’s one of the main factors that encouraged the state of Washington to give it a try.
Browns and a few others have been tried here too with limited results (again subjective assessment).
YMMV.
-
They’ve planted TM’s in Curlew Lake in Ferry County to cut down the squawfish population. I saw one hovering under a dock–looked like he was getting ready to hammer some little bass. Interesting looking fish–can you imagine going to some high lake they’re experimenting with them at and you didn’t know it and getting ripped up by one….
-
I’m not sure why Sandy feels the results would be 10 years out. That certainly isn’t the Idaho experience, based on my understanding. I think we will see *at least* preliminary results in the first 2-3 years. By the way, a colleague and I are going to the lakes to do the baseline zooplankton collections later this week.
-
I’m not sure why Sandy feels the results would be 10 years out…….I think we will see *at least* preliminary results in the first 2-3 years.
Well, you could ask me, and I would tell you.
I was responding to a msg in this forum from a person who I have no way of knowing. They were wondering whether TMs would be used to control brookies in Washington. It was my belief that this person was envisioning management results from using TMs since this person went so far as to say “From the sounds of it they are leaning toward elimination of the brook trout.”
In order to put such premature thoughts into perspective, I made a guess (one I still consider to be a very good guess) that it would be 10 years before we would see the kind of results this person was inquiring about. I will stand by my prediction that management results (that is, actually seeing TMs being planted in high lakes as an accepted management strategy for controlling stunted populations) is a good 10 years out (assuming the experiement is successful). True, scientific preliminary results will come sooner, but that is not the type of results I was talking about
-
A few years back, I heard of someone getting a 5lb brookie out of one of the lakes on the Warehouser land E of Snoqualmie. I think you have to pay a yearly access fee. I ended up fishing a different lake in that area, not on their land. But I’m not familiar with that area.
I didn’t know Waptus had Brookies… I was just there, and fished one area real late- Caught 3 hard fighting RBs- 13, 15, and 17″ It was great. Wish I could have stayed there longer. I was close to that island toward the W side. Sure can get windy there.
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.