Report 4-5-15

[Gavin]

Food is not the limiting factor down there. The sculpin & minnow population is astounding.

[BruteFish83]

Food is not the limiting factor down there. The sculpin & minnow population is astounding.

Agreed. Food is not the limiting factor - but it is limited. There's only so many large food items in there at a time like crayfish, minnows, amphibians, pieces of dead fish, big sculpins etc. If we want to see more bigger fish come out of there, than those food items need to go to the 20+ fish more than the 18 and under fish. Competition is the limiting factor.

[joeD]

With regard to the Current, taking fish out of the water, regardless of size, harvesting, if you will, does not necessarily mean that other fish will automatically grow larger. It is not a logical, if A, then B, result, equation. Especially in nature.

It assumes that less fish in a given area will have better access to available food. Thereby growing larger. But, what if those remaining fish don't take advantage of their bounty? What if they're dumb, and aren't so adept at catching prey? What if the prey was somehow smarter one year, and less likely to be caught? What if they fail to reproduce? What if, a dominant 18 inch fish in a certain stretch of water was legally harvested? And all that remained were 12" stockers. Who are the females going to procreate with? An 18 inch stud? Or 12" wimps? And what genetic code will be passed from the coupling of the female and 12" wussies? That's right. More wussies.

If enough people, take enough large fish, legally, out of a finite and fragile fishery, there will not be anything left for others. Regardless of the amount and ease of food available to the remaining fish.

The Current has a so many big fish. Catch and release has a lot to do with that. The competition is not below the water. The competition is above the water.

[BruteFish83]

With regard to the Current, taking fish out of the water, regardless of size, harvesting, if you will, does not necessarily mean that other fish will automatically grow larger. It is not a logical, if A, then B, result, equation. Especially in nature.

It assumes that less fish in a given area will have better access to available food. Thereby growing larger. But, what if those remaining fish don't take advantage of their bounty? What if they're dumb, and aren't so adept at catching prey? What if the prey was somehow smarter one year, and less likely to be caught? What if they fail to reproduce? What if, a dominant 18 inch fish in a certain stretch of water was legally harvested? And all that remained were 12" stockers. Who are the females going to procreate with? An 18 inch stud? Or 12" wimps? And what genetic code will be passed from the coupling of the female and 12" wussies? That's right. More wussies.

If enough people, take enough large fish, legally, out of a finite and fragile fishery, there will not be anything left for others. Regardless of the amount and ease of food available to the remaining fish.

The Current has a so many big fish. Catch and release has a lot to do with that. The competition is not below the water. The competition is above the water.

Once again, the MDC wouldn't put this regulation into effect if was going to ruin the fishing. Every capable angler on this post could go take a legal size fish out of there tomorrow - you don't think the MDC considered this a possibility? You know they did, Joe. It's not a problem because 1) it will only result in larger trout and 2) they'll just re-stock it with 7000 browns again.

Last year the MDC surveyed above Baptist in the Fall. 19% of the brown trout they captured were above 18". That means that 81% of the browns captured were at 18" and below. I think that those numbers could be better. Eliminate a fair amount of the 18s, and that 19% has to rise.

The point that I'm trying to make is that we, the anglers, essentially have the ability to manage that stream for larger trout. Again, I believe it can be achieved by occasionally taking an 18-19" fish and release anything bigger. My only intention for theorizing this is to make this awesome fishery even better. I don't think we've come close to seeing what size fish this river could produce.

[Alex Heitman]

That's because they surveyed above baptist

[Kayser]

Here's one- I caught a 22" brown last fall. I could have kept the fish, but didn't. Early this spring, another angler posted pictures from the same stretch- same fish, spots matched exactly. If I had kept that fish, no one else could have caught it. It cannot grow if it's dead.

99% of the browns I catch are fat and healthy to the extreme. Plenty of food for producing those football trout. The biggest fish I've seen have always been very far from accesses, in good cover that's hard to fish. Aka- lowest angling pressure.

I'm not the best, but I do alright. I release all the trout I catch, hoping they'll get bigger. There is more than enough food to grow lots of big trout, and I've seen too many big fish after high water years that went to zero after really low and clear summers to believe it's not angling pressure. When people can see the fish, or they move into the lower reaches of the park, the big fish are selected against.

The population dynamic of brown trout in that stretch of river strongly indicates external pressure on the larger fish that have not reached maximum lifespan, and have plenty of food, based on girth:length ratios.

[BruteFish83]

Here's one- I caught a 22" brown last fall. I could have kept the fish, but didn't. Early this spring, another angler posted pictures from the same stretch- same fish, spots matched exactly. If I had kept that fish, no one else could have caught it. It cannot grow if it's dead.

99% of the browns I catch are fat and healthy to the extreme. Plenty of food for producing those football trout. The biggest fish I've seen have always been very far from accesses, in good cover that's hard to fish. Aka- lowest angling pressure.

I'm not the best, but I do alright. I release all the trout I catch, hoping they'll get bigger. There is more than enough food to grow lots of big trout, and I've seen too many big fish after high water years that went to zero after really low and clear summers to believe it's not angling pressure. When people can see the fish, or they move into the lower reaches of the park, the big fish are selected against.

The population dynamic of brown trout in that stretch of river strongly indicates external pressure on the larger fish that have not reached maximum lifespan, and have plenty of food, based on girth:length ratios.

I'd agree with you. I would've released that 22" fish too. It probably was caught several times because it was the most dominant fish in that stretch and got first dibs on whatever came down the river. I've also caught the same dominant fish multiple times out of the same hole.

Figure the brown trout estimate last year for above Baptist was 323 fish per mile. 82% of that, or 264 fish, were 18" or below. I'm only speculating that if the 18" tier was thinned out a bit, that 22" could probably be 24" or even 26"

[ozark trout fisher]

There are situations where harvesting legal fish can result in better fishing. But I don't think that applies to the trout fishery in the Current. There are two things at play here:

1. This isn't a wild fishery, so the idea that fish numbers are going to somehow go unchecked unless we harvest them has no basis in fact. Browns can't reproduce in the Current. Rainbows can, but don't enough for that to factor in even a little bit. Especially in terms of the browns, I trust the MDC enough that they are putting the right number of trout in the river to meet their management objectives (rainbows are a little weird because they trickle down at their own pace, and I'd be slightly more amenable to some legal harvest of those.) Without our "help" there is going to be a ton of natural mortality anytime you throw a bunch of tame 8 inch trout into a wild setting. You've got herons, other predators, C&R mortality, and the 47 pound, 8 ounce rainbow that lives in the hole right above Tan Vat which accounts for at least a couple hundred/year (side note: I hear he loves #28 midge imitations and 7x tippet, and you should devote a lot of time and effort to catching him.)

Anyway, the MDC is carefully managing the population, and while they probably figure some legal harvest into the equation, I can't imagine it's much. Unless they tell me to start killing fish, I'm not going to. And that's at least 98% because of philosophy. The other 2% has to do with the pesky detail of never catching legal--sized fish.

2. You could make an argument that harvesting some larger fish is actually the best method if we want to focus on producing truly massive brown trout in the Current River. But which is a more attractive, reasonable management objective: a solid, fishable number of 18-22 inch trout, that provide great sport and a real trophy to anglers...or like, a couple 25-30 inchers that no one may ever actually catch? It seems pretty straightforward to me.

[joeD]

There is not an overpopulation of trout on the Current. Given known fishing pressure, catch and release is working. Taking a 16 -20 inch fish legally out this PARTICULAR fishery would do massive harm. Plus, there is no guarantee that the Current could even grow a 20 lb fish. In general, aquatic environment dictates size, regardless of human intervention.

I understand what you are saying, and where "you are coming from." I just don't think it is sensible for the upper Current.

[Gavin]

20% over 18 is a great indicator of an Apex fishery, especially when you consider the size of the river. There is plenty of food but the population is down quite a bit. The MTFA, Lunker Patchers, Derby Fishers and similar dipsticks take a big toll When they run into the park in hot weather. They can take 4 over 15 in the park.