Al Agnew Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 Like I said, I don't have any much better way to assess the volume of water than the mean Cubic Feet per second . I just kinda thought it was interesting.... Not meant to be anything definitive. In the original post I said there were a lot of reason this data isn't perfect. I just thought it was worth posting. My bad.... I wasn't trying to cut your number crunching down...just following up on it as was Eric and others. It's exactly the kind of stuff I like to do for fun--I guess you'd call us angling math geeks. Thanks for posting it, and sorry if I came off wrong.
Flysmallie Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 Like I said, I don't have any much better way to assess the volume of water than the mean Cubic Feet per second . I just kinda thought it was interesting.... Not meant to be anything definitive. In the original post I said there were a lot of reason this data isn't perfect. I just thought it was worth posting. My bad.... Don't apologize. Even though the numbers don't have much meaning, it has sparked a good conversation.
eric1978 Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 If I could get the mean current speed for the CFS values (would like from low water periods), I could do a quick calculation of how many cubic feet of living space are needed per trout at low water periods. Divide the CFS by the speed to get the cubic feet per mile (be sure to convert hours to seconds), then divide the CF/mi by the trout per mile, and get CF/trout. Could be an indicator of overall trout productivity of the stream, and thus quality of habitat. Then again, getting the mean speed would be a royal pain... Rob Brain officially fried.
Brian K. Shaffer Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 This is great minds thinking alike. Good read.... Brian Just once I wish a trout would wink at me! ozarkflyfisher@gmail.com I'm the guy wearing the same Simms longbilled hat for 10 years now.
ozark trout fisher Posted October 23, 2009 Author Posted October 23, 2009 I wasn't trying to cut your number crunching down...just following up on it as was Eric and others. It's exactly the kind of stuff I like to do for fun--I guess you'd call us angling math geeks. Thanks for posting it, and sorry if I came off wrong. Hey, don't worry about it. I was just kidding. On a slightly different topic...I was reading yesterday in Orvis's book about reading trout streams, and it said that trout live prefer to live in water no faster than 1/2 mile per hour, and almost never even to feed will they jump out into current faster than 2 miles per hour. Frankly, I'm not sure I believe this. I'm rather sure that I have caught trout in water a lot faster than that. I would have to imagine most of the riffles and shoals around here move faster than 2 MPH, and plenty of them hold trout. What's your guy's take on this? Also, I've always heard before that the water on the bottom of a stream usually moves slower than the water above it. It seems that the author of this particular book didn't put much emphasis on that, basically stating that trout cannot survive (at least for long) in water that, at the surface, moves faster than 2 MPH. Seems a little fishy (pun intended) to me.
fishinwrench Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 OTF, I have the electro-shock data for the Niangua if you'd like to see it, or anyone else for that matter. It's a big file so I can't just post it here but if you PM me an email addy I'll forward it to whoever wants to look it over. Wrench
brownieman Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 OTF, I have the electro-shock data for the Niangua if you'd like to see it, or anyone else for that matter. It's a big file so I can't just post it here but if you PM me an email addy I'll forward it to whoever wants to look it over. Wrench Wrench... Brother...can't believe my eyes man. Of all people you speadin that propoganda...that's a bad omen my friend, the Fish Gods are gonna be frownin on you, lmao. Wait and see...now we don't stand a chance of landing that pig... dangit man. You're gonna leave me no choice but to shoot him if we can even get him that close to us...man ! You sure just decreased our odds. Wait...maybe it's the sportsman in ya...reckon I like a challenge too so I guess it's cool, glad I second thought that out. Maybe you, myself, pat, bbb and pc can surround him...that's only if you're gonna be a member of the new order of fish hunters...we are in the process of forming this thing so you better get in or get left out man. later on My friends say I'm a douche bag ?? Avatar...mister brownie bm <><
Chief Grey Bear Posted October 23, 2009 Posted October 23, 2009 Is the gradient per mile being figured in any of this? Would it matter? I would think if you also add in those variables it wo....u...ld...soooorrrrr.....yyyyyy, braaaaain is seeeeeeeizinnnng. Ceeeeeeeee.......lls melllllllting. Chief Grey Bear Living is dangerous to your health Owner Ozark Fishing Expeditions Co-Owner, Chief Executive Product Development Team Jerm Werm Executive Pro Staff Team Agnew Executive Pro Staff Paul Dallas Productions Executive Pro Staff Team Heddon, River Division Chief Primary Consultant Missouri Smallmouth Alliance Executive Vice President Ronnie Moore Outdoors
dgames Posted October 24, 2009 Posted October 24, 2009 MEAN 155.9 Mean Trout per Mile Numbers 2001-2008 Current River 467 Trout per mile Meramec 356 Trout Per mile Eleven Point River 752 Trout per mile Little Piney Creek 157 Trout Per Mile Number of trout in each cubic feet per second of stream (if you follow what I mean by that) Current River 1.42 Trout per CFS Meramec River 0.7 Trout per CFS Eleven Point River 1.03 Trout per CFS Little Piney Creek 1.01 Trout per CFS So just kinda take this for what it's worth, which I'm sure ain't much... I think there is merit to this comparison although I do agree that an appropriate tweak would be to use "normal" low water flow and ignore flood events. Anyway, while not perfect, I think it would be a pretty good tool to compare the relative abundance of fish in a river. The numbers above imply that the current has the highest fish density & meramec the lowest of these. I haven't fished them all so I can't really relate that to personal experience on these rivers. This ranking order does make sense to me based on my perception of the reputation of these rivers though. I would be interested to see similar numbers for the north fork above & below blair. I would guess that the N Fork would compare well to the Current.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now