- This topic has 10 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 20 years, 5 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
“In anticipation of the coming backpacking/high lakes fishing season, I've been pondering where I'd like to go and what I'd like to catch. There are still a few fish that I haven't been able to find in high lakes like goldens, browns, atlantic salmon, and grayling. ^^^^Except for maybe the browns, I think the reason that I haven't caught these fish in high lakes is because they are usually found in lakes that are obscure and hard to get to, the type of hiking that I am just starting to do. I'm not in any big hurry to check every fish off the list–that will come with time and I mostly just enjoy the getting away from life anyway–but I've gotten to thinking: how is it determined which species are stocked in which lakes; why aren't these rare species stocked more widely?^^^^I have a basic understanding of the matter, but I would like to know more. Is it the Trailblazers that decide what goes where? What are these decisions based off of? ^^^^I'm sure once I get a general answer it will inspire more questions, so reply only if you dare. ;)^^^^Thanks^^^^Andrew^^^^[Edited on 2-29-2004 by brownster145]”
-
“The final decision on species is made by WDFW biologists. We can, and do, make suggestions of which species we want to plant, but the final decision is made by the bio. There are certain restrictions. In wilderness, a species must have been planted in the lake to be eligible for planting now. If a lake has never been planted with a particular species the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) must be followed and that is reletively unusual. In no case do we want to introduce a fish that will naturally reproduce so lakes that have spawning potential will not receive species like CT that are prone to over reproduction. So within those restrictions, species are chosen that it is felt will best grow in the lake and offer a diversity of opportunity. If a lake, for instance, has large populations of copepods RB will likely be stocked because they are better able to utilize that food source then CT. Goldens are typically stocked in higher, more remote lakes. But not always. Big Greider is an easily accessible golden lake, though it is large and they can be hard to catch. It also has some RB. ^^^^Brown trout are typically stocked in a lake with too many stunted EB or CT in an attempt to cut down those populations. There are some high lakes with browns. Most, but not all, are in the southern part of the state. ^^^^I don’t think you’ll find any more Atlantic salmon in any high lakes. There were some stocked in the early eighties and they lived a long time, but I think they are all gone now. I was with someone who caught one, but I never managed to catch one either.^^^^Grayling are found in only one lake in the state.”
-
“”In wilderness, a species must have been planted in the lake to be eligible for planting now. If a lake has never been planted with a particular species the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) must be followed and that is reletively unusual. “^^^^^^So if a lake in an official “Wilderness Area” hasn't been planted with, say, golden trout in the past, it probably never will be? Is that right? I'm not quite understanding that part. ^^^^I know of at least a few high lakes in the northern part of the state that have brown trout in them. Tomyhoi comes to mind. ^^^^No more atlantic salmon, though. Interesting. On the topic of landlocked salmon, what about kokanee? Are they ever planted in high lakes?^^^^Thanks for the good info^^^^Andrew”
-
“
Originally posted by brownster145^^So if a lake in an official “Wilderness Area” hasn't been planted with, say, golden trout in the past, it probably never will be? Is that right? I'm not quite understanding that part.
^^That is exactly right. It isn't impossible for a new species to be introduced, but it would be a special case like… see below…^^
I know of at least a few high lakes in the northern part of the state that have brown trout in them. Tomyhoi comes to mind.
^^Quite right. There are a handful, and Tomyhoi is one. It is an example of a wilderness lake that had a new species introduced. In this case, a predator species, brown trout, was stocked in an attempt to control a runaway population of EBs. This is the most common reason you'll see new species stocked in the future. Stunted populations are a disaster for the native flora and fauna in high lakes and finding ways to control them will be a very high priority in upcoming years. Brown trout have not been terribly effective. They can have some effect on stunted populations and they do grow large, offering a desirable fish for anglers, but they don't solve the problem and there are major downstream concerns. In the future you are more likely to see sterile predators like tiger trout or tiger muskies.^^^^
Interesting. On the topic of landlocked salmon, what about kokanee? Are they ever planted in high lakes?
^^I only know of one case where kokanee have been stocked in a high lake in recent years. There is a lake in the Alpine Lakes Wilderness that was stocked with kokanee in 1918. About 10 years ago, amazingly, it was discovered they are still there.”
-
I inquired about the status of tiger trout stocks in high lakes a while back in the “Favorite Mtn. Trout” thread. Are you saying that tiger trout may begin to take over for brown trout in lakes where predators are needed? What do you mean when you say “there are major downstream concerns”?^^^^Has any experimentation been done with tiger muskies in high lakes? It seems like they would almost be too effective–they are truly voracious fish. ^^^^Andrew
-
Tiger trout are likely to be used rather then browns for future population control projects. Several years ago the NMFS scuttled proposed brown trout plants in several high lakes citing concerns about the browns dropping out of the lakes into river systems and no browns have been stocked in high lakes in the northern part of the state since that time.^^^^Tiger muskies have been successfully used in Idaho high lakes to control EBs and they may be tried here. There is no way they can be too effective. If they wipe out all the fish in a lake they'll die of starvation and we'll be able to go in with fish that don't reproduce. That would be the best situation of all but it is more likely they won't be able to eliminate all the fish unless the lake has no cover whatsoever.
-
-
The best thing to happen would be to eliminate all out of control populations completely so the lakes could be managed under controlled conditions. The next best thing would be to control the population. In that case the predator species would have to be periodically re-stocked to keep the population in check. It is much more difficult to manage the quantities of fish in the lake this way.
-
-
“Browns haven't been terribly effective at thinning populations, but the browns get really, really big and tough to catch. I know of at least one lake were the brookies have gained some size and fat, but not a lot. Still, the chance for large browns is a huge improvement in the fishery. I'd like to see a rigerous test of tiger trout, but I haven't seen it yet. There have been studies with tiger muskies and they've been very, very effective on the EBs. Hopefully we'll start testing some tiger muskies here in WA next year.”
-
“The westslope cutthroat we use here comes from Twin Lakes near Lake Wenatchee. They are mountain lakes and the fish are beautifully adapted to that environment. Unfortunately, because given any sort of water movement and gravel like a spring in the lake or a bit of stream flow over shore gravel and they'll reproduce. Now, they are only stocked where they have a track record of not reproducing. Some varieties of RB, most notably Kamloops RB they planted in the fifties and sixties often over reproduced, too.”
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.