Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Actually most of the trout-bearing high lakes of California, including the majority of trout-bearing high lakes in the Sierra Nevada, are in USFS land rather than NPS. Here in CA the NPS indeed moved first as air dropping was stopped in Sequoia-Kings Canyon NPs in and in the vast majority Yosemite lakes in the 1970’s–the very few remaining stocked lakes in Yosemite (can name on one hand) were phased out by the late 80’s/early 90s. This was prior to the Mountain Yellow Frog crisis. The USFS first raised this issue in the early 90’s if I recall and proposed an aggressively anti-trout plan similar to the NPs (ie cessation of all stocking). This did not occur but many MYLF studies followed. This has led to major cutbacks in air dropping in USFS land, as well as extermination of trout populations in selected lakes (collectively dozens of lakes but percentage wise not too many lakes) in both USFS lands and the National Parks (where the fisheries they’re killing off are of course self sustaining given that stocking ceased long ago). Accordingly the lakes situation isn’t all that different in CA and Washington.
Viewed from the “outside” (California) I find it a shame that policy seems to be getting pushed in the direction that it has gone in California (where the self sustaining lake is viewed as the next-best type of fishery in terms of environmental compatibility–with fishless lakes being viewed as “best”), which in my opinion is a rather primitive and counterproductive approach compared your preferred alternative in the EIR. There is little doubt that the last couple decades of debates over high lake fisheries management have stigmatized fish stocking in the minds of many, blinding them to many alternatives.
Regarding self sustaining fisheries from a CA perspective, we have an abundance of trout-bearing high lakes here so one can get a good look at how naturally reproducing fisheries have fared here–I have personally visited about 750 high lakes here, many of which are self sustaining (this is true of all of the trout-bearing lakes in Yosemite and Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Parks where air dropping ceased long ago).
There is a relatively small fraction of self sustaining lakes that contain low population densities of trout, but with such a large number of lakes, one can still find a fair number of these places. Most of the self sustaining fisheries, have progressively increased in population density over the years, and this is no doubt the biggest difference in fish size (much smaller and more numerous today on average) than reports of “the way it used to be” and historical accounts such as Charlie McDermand’s fine accounts from the 1940’s. There is a very full spectrum of fisheries in this self sustaining category from lakes with stunted populations. Stunted lakes are not limited to brook trout lakes, for stunted populations of rainbows and goldens exist in plenty of lakes. There are fisheries “in the middle” that contain fairly large numbers of fish that reach very respectable top end. Those lakes provide good sport because they are not “all or nothing” lakes in which one either catches the lunker or strikes out. On the other hand their population densities are high enough so that sensitive species such as the Mountain Yellow Legged frog have great difficulty coexisting. On the premium side are the lakes with the low population density, very large fish, and potential compatibility with sensitive species. Such lakes are also not salmonid-species-specific, for there are premium brook trout lakes in this category as well as rainbow and golden fisheries.
Another wild card in all of this appears to be variations in regional climate and ecosystems. For example the MYLF really have a hard time surviving in trout-bearing lakes of the High Sierra (say Yosemite and south), with coexistence generally limited to lakes with very low fish population densities. In contrast in the northern Sierra Nevada (Desolation Wilderness near Lake Tahoe is a poster child) there are (or were) many fisheries where stocked or naturally reproducing trout fisheries coexisted just fine with MYLF for many decades. Nobody has ever explained to me why this is true, but one thing that comes to mind is that the lakes in the northern Sierra Nevada are at lower average elevations than those in the “High” Sierra.
In any case, I am saddened by this turn of events, for I have often mentioned to Californians that Washington high lakes fisheries management directions are more enlightened than those here (in CA). In particular there seemed to be a more cooperative approach (between various agencies) before now. In CA things have been very confrontational from the start with various agencies launching what seemed to be one-sided anti-trout campaigns, many fishermen retaliating while commonly using uninformed emotional arguments to back their case and ignoring the good science behind many of the environmental studies, and CA DFG caught a bit in the middle but leaning strongly toward the angler advocacy side (in spite of this many anglers blame DFG for all of the management changes). What we now find is that many management changes are promulgated in a way that seems to limit public comment. Even DFG has been reluctant to publicly divulge information (although they will upon individual request)–the party line is that if anglers know too much, some of them may take matters into their own hands and “coffee can” fishless lakes.
Cheers,
John
I believe the Sierra Nevada here in CA is a bit drier during the high lake season than most of the areas of the Washington high lakes, but we do have our thunderstorms and occasional monsoonal patterns (wherein it’s not just afternoon thundershowers but thundershowers most of the day for days on end). I can’t say fishing in the rain has been any better or worse for me than fishing in clear weather. There have been some times I’ve had a field day in the rain and other times I’ve been skunked.
Greetings from California. For those of you who don’t mind traveling a bit, the winter was extremely mild in California and especially the Sierra Nevada, resulting in the earliest thaw since 1988. High lakes that normally do not open up until late June were open in early to mid May and I’ve exploited this with the most early trips I’ve done in a good 15 years. An enormous number of lakes are open right now compared to the usual this time of year. I certainly know the cabin fever feeling of waiting for that long delayed thaw, looking at topos and daydreaming while sipping on an IPA… Here in Central California (moved to Fresno 2 years ago) the high country itch gets further aggravated as temps rise toward the 100F range. Anyhow, if many of you are getting impatient, there are plenty of lakes in the Sierras to go around.
Cheers,
John
@Brian Curtis wrote:
We had several good sized lakes that were completely left off the 15 minute series here in WA. They were truly secret for a while. But they all appear on the new 7.5 minute maps.
In point of fact, in addition to the monumental mislocation of Wicks Lake in Russian Wilderness, I know of at least three trailless trout-bearing lakes in the northern Sierra that were not shown on the 15′ series but are on the 7.5′–all in the same quad, no less. I admit in those three cases that I didn’t even know where these lakes were until I had the 7.5 in my hands (so they weren’t “secret” unlike Wicks, that I located by simply looking around and following my gut).
I’d have to say I’m strictly Old School on this. In my profession as a geologist, GPS has a lot of uses (and I use it), but it can’t evaluate the feasibility of routes getting from point A to point B, and I don’t even remotely consider it in my future recreational hiking plans. I’ve used a topo map without a compass for hiking to my favorite CA high lakes (in contrast, as a geologist I use a compass for all sorts of things) for the 30+ years I’ve been planning and leading my own trips. Perhaps this is because the CA high country is relatively free of dense tree or vegetative cover, so the line of sight nearly always has distinctive topography one can locate off of. There were a few times doing off trail hikes in dense trees that I sort of wished I had a compass, but I always emerged from the greenery in good shape in the end. GPS gives exact position, but it doesn’t give you topography which one needs from a topo in order to navigate off trail. If I want to precisely relocate a rock sample I take for research purposes, GPS is the way to go. A high country lake is an enormous target by comparison, and a topo map is more than adequate to locate it, provided the topo is correct. If it isn’t, the GPS won’t really help you anyway. I mention this because I did find a lake in the Russian Wilderness that was mislocated on the topo map by a whopping 600 vertical feet. Imagine bushwhacking your way to the head of cirque only to find a brush covered bowl instead of a lake! This error was present in the old USGS 15′ series (the biggest error I’ve seen in that series) and also on the USFS Russian Wilderness topo. It was corrected on the new USFS Russian Wilderness topo (don’t know if it’s correct on 7.5′ USGS series). Too bad the error only obscured the location of a lake with average sized brookies; it would have been a nicer story if lunkers swam in there.
Yes, everyone tends to have vastly different favorites.
Here are mine:
1.(maybe this is 1 to 3) 1/4oz Z-Ray, “brass” pattern (gold with red spots painted on one side). Z-Rays have a spectacularly irregular and enticing action that a fishing friend of mine once said “dang, it even makes ME hungry watching it”. I use Z-Rays on something like 99% of my casts. The “brass” amounts to my default lure, if fishing lakes with rainbows or brookies, the two most common species in CA high lakes. For goldens, my default is a 1/4 oz Z-Ray pattern known as the Z-Hooker, which is gradient shaded from purple through whitish to orange with black spots on one side (all silver on the other). For cutthroat and browns, I tend to use the 1/4 oz brown trout Z-Ray pattern which is gradient shaded from dark brown to yellow to whitish with black spots on one side, silvered on the other.2. Golden or Silver/Blue Kastmasters (1/4 oz). These are most of the other 1% of my casts. The casting range of the Kastmaster is unmatched for any lure I’ve tried of equivalent weight (a 1/4 oz Kastmaster will outcast a 1/4 oz Z-Ray by a good 20%). I think the action of a Kastmaster is better at ultralow speed retrieves than a Z-Ray, although, on the average, I still tend to stick to my Z-Rays for my slow bottom-hugging retrieves. The Kastmaster is probably the most popular lure among the high lake lure fishers I know in CA, and many I know have done exceptionally well using it . A special mention goes to my “Gilmore Lake Special” which is the gold 3/8 oz Kastmaster. This is the lure that claimed a 32.5″ mackinaw out of Gilmore Lake, and the only lure in my box that could reach the area the fish were hanging out on that particular day.
3. Honorable mention lure. There was this 1/4oz Wonderlure pattern that I saw back in 1980 and (sadly) haven’t seen since: green shading to yellow overprinted by a red honeycomb pattern. When you fish a lot of lures certain color combinations you simply know will be deadly (I was so sure about the Z-Hooker when it came out, I ordered several dozen from the manufacturer without ever having tried it in action). This particular Wonderlure was one of those. I picked it up in a store in Hamilton, MT, when I was working up in those parts in the summer of ’80. It consistently outperformed my Super Duper and Z-Rays (in those days, the only Z-Rays I had were silver/red and fluorescent red) in fishing the high lakes of the Bitterroot Wilderness. Sadly, I lost the last of those sometime in the summer of 1981 and have never seen one since.
I like the description of that Wyoming Whoopie. I wonder if I can find those anywhere in Calif.
Here’s a little perspective from the California backcountry. Here too it seems that the real backpacking peak was in the 70’s. Most or all of the increase in fishing pressure in the recent decades has been at those waters reached by roads. The areas along major trails within 5 miles or so of the trailheads are crowded, but it doesn’t appear to me that they are any more crowded than I remember 30+ years ago. Off trail hiking has decreased dramatically in the Sierras and Klamaths over the past few decades–off trail hiking clearly peaked in the ’70’s here. Many former use trails along off trail routes have faded or been overgrown. Most backcountry hikers in the ’70s could read a topo map, whereas the vast majority today cannot and will not venture off a trail (and they shouldn’t if they can’t read a topo–GPS can give them location but it won’t evaluate the topographic feasibility of a route!) There has been a decrease in fish size at a number of high lakes but the biggest culprit appears to be population density increases in lakes rather than fishing pressure. The increases in population density appear to be a product of too efficient natural reproduction, overly generous fingerling allotments, or sometimes a combination of both. Of course, many blame this decline in fish size on fishing pressure, but a thorough look at the locations of lakes and progression of maximum fish sizes through time indicates otherwise. As for degradation of formerly nice spots from a non-fishing standpoint (litter, etc.), I don’t necessarily think there are any more places that are trashed in the backcountry than 30 years ago for the reasons given above. There may have been some shifting of use over the years (some areas see heavier use than before whereas others see less), and some of this may be due to publicity given in magazine articles, guidebooks, or websites, but some of it may also be due to changes in wilderness management policy, such as changes in wilderness permit quota amounts or quota seasons.
As someone who has maintained a small website that highlights California high lake fishing I do have guidelines I follow about what I feel are the lakes that should or should not be publicized. Here are mine:
1. Lakes that I might publicize:
(a) Any lake receiving moderate to heavy use. The tiny number of people who chance upon my site who decide, based on what they read, to visit the lake will be an insignificant fraction of the visitors to the lake. There may be special fishing spots along the shorelines of such lakes. I will not divulge any info on these. Nor will I share any secrets of neglected hideaway campsites at such lakes.
(b) Lakes that are exceptionally hard to get to–ALL of these are off trail and the off trail hiking is extended and more than rough enough to make the destinations off limits to pack animals. These are listed only if they are already mentioned or listed in at least one book. The number of people who would even consider going to such lakes are vanishingly small and the number of folks who happen to decide on such a place after seeing it mentioned on my site can probably be numbered on one hand (and zero would probably be the most common number). Inaccessible lakes in category 2(b) below will NOT be publicized however.2. Lakes that I won’t publicize.
(a)Any lake that is not in category 1(b), has good fishing for fish of size, and is not moderately to heavily used. This category can include off trail lakes, especially if the off trail hiking is not rough and can be accomplished on horseback, or if the off trail lakes are fairly close to a trailhead (ie within day hiking range). Most “hidden gems” and “secret spots” fall into this category. I’d count lightly-used 4WD lakes in this category, too.
(b) Any lake that has whose fish population may be sensitive. This includes a number of lakes in NPs that have very low spawning potential (and none of the lakes in our NPs are air dropped). A small increase in fishing pressure at such a lake may indeed wipe out the fishery.@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.
Brian, thanks for your informative reply. It really seems like folks in WA are ahead of the curve compared to those of us in CA. Folks involved in high country lake fisheries management in CA would do well to pay attention to what’s going on north of them.
Cheers,
John
@smckean wrote:
Implied in the very reasonable stmt above, and certainly in the dialogue that occurred in 1968 when the NCNP was formed, and to some extent even now in this EIS, is that fish stocking is LESS desirable than self-sustaining trout populations. We have learned that this is not true (see Liss & Larson study — which is not quoted as well as it should have been in the EIS). In high lakes, self-sustaining populations often (but not always) over-reproduce causing over-grazing of the food supply (invertebrates, salamanders, etc). What is often missed, even now, is that what you want is that high lakes, without a naturally occurring trout population, do NOT reproduce (with rare exceptions). A lake that does not have a self sustaining population can then be stocked with a species that can’t reproduce (sterile fish let’s say). This gives you full control over managing the population of fish in the lake such that it does NOT harm the ecosystem.
This is indeed a very reasonable and well supported concept that stocking opponents don’t seem to grasp, and it certainly is consistent with my observations of the self-sustaining fisheries on the Sierra Nevada NPs. Contrary to what many believe, brookies aren’t the only fish that overpopulate lakes (just the most common)–I’ve seen lots of self-sustaining golden and rainbow lakes that are overflowing with too many small fish. However, I think that we (ie stocking proponents, including DFG) in CA probably hurt our cause because, until the very latest rounds of management changes, stocked lakes were, on the average, overstocked (and they certainly were at the time when stocking was phased out in our NPs). This is why I seemed to observe a higher proportion of “premium” (ie large fish, lower population density) lakes in the NPs (ie self sustaining fisheries) than without in areas of equivalent elevation and exposure. I agree that limited stocking in lakes with no natural reproduction is promising approach but there are two questions I have regarding this general approach:
1. Depending on the area (and I’m not at all familiar with NC lakes) spawning potential (even excluding that for brookies and other chars) has proven to be better than thought in many lakes. Many lakes that folks 20 years ago thought did not support significant spawning have turned out to be self sustaining (the lakes in the CA NPs provide a good guide here). Thus, the percentage of lakes that fit the criteria of being manageable by stocking only may be well less than half the available lakes in some regions. Of course if the stocked fish are sterile, this is not an issue, provided one is starting with fishless lakes.
2. As a veteran high lake angler I target “premium” (big fish, low density) lakes and would benefit from a program that manages exclusively low density fisheries, but I believe the vast majority of folks who like fishing simply want to catch something. The average angler usually ends up getting frustrated at home run type lakes. If the majority of lakes in a given region are managed as low density lakes, isn’t this a rather elitist approach in terms of serving a very small percentage of high lake anglers–ie the very experienced ones such as those of us here? Perhaps this question stems from my lack of understanding of the big picture of what lakes will be left alone as self sustaining (if any) versus those that are proposed to be managed by stocking.This topic is extremely interesting because the history here (from what I read on the link Brian provided) contrasts greatly with what went on in Sequoia-Kings Canyon and Yosemite National Parks. It would appear that anglers in Washington have (thankfully) much more clout than in California where it seems we have little influence on decision making, in spite of vigorous efforts (and strong advocacy from the Cal. Dept. of Fish and Game).
The California perspective may give you an idea of how the “worst case scenario” will affect fishing. For all intents and purposes stocking was phased out in CA NP’s in the 70’s with only a few lakes (ie can count them on your fingers) being stocked after that–I think the very last stocking occurred in 1991 or something like that. There were hundreds of lakes that were affected. The losses in terms of fish-bearing lakes varied by region and according to whether the stocked species were brookies or not. I don’t know much about Lassen because I’ve never fished there, but what I hear is that because there are few running inlets and outlets to the lakes there, that very few Lassen lakes currently have fish. Yosemite has fared somewhat better, although I think the numbers I’ve seen indicate a huge hit. One book states that 108 of the 318 “major” lakes in the Park are self sustaining. First I suspect that some of the 318 did not contain fish during the stocked era–I’ve visited several drainages that appeared to have good spawning potential but no fish and concluded that those areas probably were never stocked. Second, I think the 108 slightly underestimates the number of fish-bearing lakes (by fifteen or more). Be that as it may, I suspect the losses after stocking cessation were probably approaching 50% of the lakes. The losses have been most severe in parts of northern Yosemite where fisheries where the stocked species were almost exclusively rainbows and spawning was not adequate in a majority of the lakes. Many of the N. Yosemite fisheries that were lost were legends that were said to produce fish in the 20″+ range. Now a 50% hit is pretty harsh, but 110+ lakes with fish still gives us lots of good places to after. I still see Yosemite as a fine place to fish. Sequoia-Kings Canyon seems to have done better still. I haven’t seen any numbers on the before and after, but my impression is that losses have been well under 50% (if I had to guess, I’d say closer to 30%). The number of fish-bearing lakes in SeKi seems beyond counting–there are just so many. In the central and southern Sierra (S-KCNP and Yosemite and areas between and flanking them) I actually prefer fishing in the National Parks rather in the flanking areas that were, up to very recently, air dropped regularly. Part of this is that I think some of the stocking in the central and southern Sierra erred on the side of overstocking, so that I’ve found more big fish lakes in the National Parks than in the flanking areas.
There are, of course, huge management changes afoot in high lakes outside of National Parks (ie National Forest land, wilderness or otherwise) in the Sierra Nevada. Significant cut backs in air dropping are in the works for most of these areas as a result of efforts to protect Mountain Yellow Legged frogs. I haven’t seen the latest management plans, but Desolation Wilderness, one area I’m familiar with has ceased air dropping in the entire western part (this is something like 1/4-1/3 of the lakes) and it appears reduced stocking dramatically in the remaining part of the wilderness. There have been some well publicized fish kills from gillnetting in other non-NP areas (and two fish kills within Kings Canyon), but the number of lakes affected from actual fish kills is small. The overall affect from my fishing perspective is that in the non NP areas we will lose some fisheries, but not quite as much as in the NP’s because the stocking is not totally terminated. The reductions in amounts of stocking will mean loss of some lakes but also mean more lakes with large fish. The affect in the National Parks, as noted above, has been harsh, but, Yosemite and Sequoia-Kings Canyon are still very nice places to go fish (Lassen is all but written off).
In any case, I wish all high lake anglers of Washington the best of luck. I hope you do better than we have.
As an outsider (CA), it is interesting to read about this. I suppose I’ve been very lucky over the years, considering the huge number of trips (>>100) I’ve done, mostly in California, but a few in Montana. To my knowledge my vehicle has not been vandalized at a trailhead. However, I do remember two stories. In the early 80’s I remember hearing how the trailhead to the legendary Papoose Lake in the Trinity Alps (NW California) was real dicey owing to frequent vandalism. On the same trip that I heard this report (on the shores of trailless Maneaten Lake in the Marble Mtns. of NW California), I returned to a trailhead to find the battery in my old beater dead. With nobody around and being many miles from any help my buddy and I considered opening up someone’s hood (not many interior latches in those days) and “borrowing” someone’s battery so we could take my car to town then charge my dead battery and then drive back to return the battery . We wisely decided against that scheme. What we didn’t know was that the sheriffs office had staked out that trailhead because of frequent theft and vandalism that had occurred there. In any case, someone did come along eventually and give us a ride into town (like a dummy I didn’t have jumper cables in the car and we had to snag someone to give us a ride back up there and jump the car).
Other than those two Klamath Mtn. stories, I haven’t heard of anyone else I’ve talked to having any problems with vandalism or theft at a trailhead, so I can’t say whether down here in CA things have gotten better, worse, or stayed the same. I think the worst thing to happen to my car at a trailhead (other than a dead battery) would be some minor under-the-hood damage caused by a marmot on one trip, and the building of a small nest under the hood by some mouse or something–I didn’t know about the nest material until it started to smoke. Oh, and then there’s some pine sap that just won’t come off…
Thanks for the welcome, Brian. I wish we had an equivalent forum like this in CA. As for issues such as MYLF, I would be happy to give an update on how things have been going (in CA and particularly the Sierra) from a fisherman’s point of view (that is somebody that doesn’t have direct access to information on policy changes). The long and the short of it is that there some fairly significant Sierra Nevada high country lake fisheries management changes (outside of Natioanal Parks), but the overall effect on high lake fishing is probably not huge. From a fishing standpoint it looks like the number of “lost” lakes (ie those that will no longer contain trout) is small in terms of percentage, although significant if one is unfortunate enough to be planning a trip to one of those “lost” lakes.
I just wanted to say that as an outsider (Californian) I am mighty impressed with these monster fish pictures! I have been fishing the high lakes of California for more than 20 years and fished over 500 lakes and I’ve only landed two fish over 20″: a 20.5″ brown from Heather Lake and Desolation Wilderness and a 32.5″ mackinaw from Gilmore Lake, also in Desolation:
My wife has fished almost as much as I have and she too only has tallied two 20″+ fish, both 23″ macks from Gilmore: 
In any case this thread and some others on this board really make me tempted to head a little further north for fishing one day.
