Sandy McKean

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 107 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Registration now required to post #85469
    Sandy McKean
    Participant

    Good move

    in reply to: Spinning reels for fly rods #85466
    Sandy McKean
    Participant

    I too do this all the time (having learned it form Brian).

    Altho…..sometimes the spinning reel bracket is too fat to fit in the rod’s reel seat keeper mechanism. I’ve only had one spinning reel do this; all others fit my fly rods. It probably just depends on how big the spinning reel is. (BTW, Brian uses VERY small spinning reels).

    in reply to: Test of attachments #1 #84429
    Sandy McKean
    Participant

    Who the hell are you?

    Strangest set of posts I’ve ever read. Was it fun to hit every single forum??

    Is there something worthwhile in dredging up 3 year old posts?

    ……something is not computing.

    in reply to: Big Alpine Trout: #84825
    Sandy McKean
    Participant

    This lake has abundance of feed. Huge scuds, salamanders, copeopods, etc. It’s really small, has a sandy bottom and is quite shallow

    Not that it matters, but I didn’t phrase my words properly. What I meant to say was that I am ongoingly interested, as a quasi-scientific matter, in the relationship btwn elevation and food supply.

    I could see by the fish photo that the food supply was good , and the food items you mention (especially the scuds) make perfect sense. It is that the fish grow to that size (which is the same thing as saying “have that much to eat”) at 6500+ feet that amazes me!

    You’ve never said……was this on the east side of the Cascades crest? (I assume it was in the Cascades.)

    in reply to: Big Alpine Trout: #84819
    Sandy McKean
    Participant

    Well in excess of 6500 ft.

    WOW…..It hard to believe any lake in the state of Washington can grow fish this big at 6500′. I would think only in eastern Washington could this be possible, but perhaps it is elsewhere.

    NO, I an not “fishing” for the lake name here. I am just curious about elevations and food supply.

    P.S. Are you sooperfly or Guest? And if Guest why not register?

    in reply to: Big Alpine Trout: #84817
    Sandy McKean
    Participant

    Nice ain’t the word for that ‘bow — it’s spectacular!. At what elevation is this lake? (I presume east side of the crest too.)

    in reply to: Pinnacle lake #85342
    Sandy McKean
    Participant

    ya, he stocked it with the snohomish club or whatever he said in the previous post.

    I assume you are a different “guest”….

    Just to be really, really clear…….

    No club or other group is given authority by the WDFW to stock lakes either. If the Trail Blazers or the Snohomish Sportsmen club, or any organization, stocks a lake, it is because the WDFW has given them direct permission to do so, lake by lake. There is no such thing as a “blanket” authorization that says “plant what you think best”. Every stocking in every lake in this state (at least on public lands) is individually and spefically authorized by the appropriate government agency (always the WDFW as far as I know).

    in reply to: Pinnacle lake #85340
    Sandy McKean
    Participant

    I also stocked Hemple with bows…

    Just to be clear…..No one in this forum stocks lakes on their own.

    ONLY the Wash Dept of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) does that. In fact, it is illegal to stock a body of water in this state without a permit from the WDFW.

    What this “guest” means is that he worked as a volunteer for the WDFW to backpack the fish to a lake that the WDFW requested be stocked with a certain number of a specified species of fish in the requested year.

    No one should get the impression that individuals stock lakes. All such activity is decided upon and authorized ONLY by WDFW biologists.

    in reply to: History of Deadhead Lk- Old horse access? #85368
    Sandy McKean
    Participant

    So one guy goes and drags this bag of stuff out of the woods, and it was their old raft, oars, and tent from years ago….

    As you are likely well aware, it is completely uncool to leave ANYTHING, much less a cache like this, at a lake (or anywhere else in the mountains for that matter).

    in reply to: Anyone been fishin lately? #85274
    Sandy McKean
    Participant

    I see you eat the small ones raw 😉

    in reply to: NCNP EIS meeting schedule #85247
    Sandy McKean
    Participant

    So take it to heart all you supposed high lake fishers……apparently you are a made of paper like the proverbial tiger. You should be ashamed.

    in reply to: hike in fishing lakes #85282
    Sandy McKean
    Participant

    This will sound facetious, but it is actually good advise…..

    To experience the high lake fishery in the state of Washington is quite simple: pull out a topo map; look for the blue spots; figure out how to get any one of them; enjoy the adventure of discovery as you are alternatively thrilled to have found great fishing, or disappointed that it didn’t work out this time. You have your lifetime in front of you.

    in reply to: Any good Brook trout lakes to hike to #85031
    Sandy McKean
    Participant

    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

    in reply to: Any good Brook trout lakes to hike to #85028
    Sandy McKean
    Participant

    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.

    in reply to: Any good Brook trout lakes to hike to #85026
    Sandy McKean
    Participant

    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.

Viewing 15 posts - 76 through 90 (of 107 total)