Death of a BIG trout

[taxidermist]

Last week the water was very warm at Buffalo City. and Zero flow for several days it appeared.

So what has happened to the original Min. flow standards etablished in 1951?

And then the flow standards meeting of last year???

[porter57]

am i wrong?, i thought trout werent natural to the area in the first place.

frankly,the whole white river system has been manipulated by man for a long time. cany expect all trout to survive given the many possible conditions.

and to expect bull shoals to dump water for these trouts welfare at the expense of thier own fisherie seem kinda like putting the cart before the horse. bull shoals lake is treated like the ugly stepsister of the whole chain.when table rock is low ,they dont flow. tanecomo is just a catch basin for table rock,they run when they have to. seems to me bull shoals would do

much better if they held some more water in the spring thru june or so.

unfortunately,those down stream would suffer from low flows and higher water temps. man has built this beast and man must find a way to solve its problems.

and im afraid its gonna have to be at the exspense of the trout.

just my opinion,you dont have to agree.

[MrDucky]

If this poor trouts death had anything to do with my rear end , Im sry but it was the big horn's fault

[Crippled Caddis]

taxidermist wrote:

<So what has happened to the original Min. flow standards etablished in 1951?>

You've hit me square in an area of ignorance---what can you tell us about those 1951 regs or can you direct us to a website concerning same?

Being actively involved with those fisheries I need all the ammo I can get. CC

[Terry Beeson]

Pro'ly get a better answer on that question on JW's board, but to the best of my knowledge, there was some sort of MinFlo agreement that was met, but never implemented.

One problem with MinFlo is the lake level of Beaver, TR, BS, NF, and GF. There are levels that must be maintained for electricity, flood control, etc. The lake level or "pool" for MinFlo was, in theory, going to raise the AVERAGE lake level a couple of feet. This put the lake folks - dock owners, fishermen, etc. - into a tizzy. They came up with the excuses that all the docks, launch ramps, parks, etc. would have to be re-designed to accomodate this rise in the lake level. I forget the cost, but it was in the 7 figures if I remember right. Not saying they don't have a point, but I can't see a couple of feet making a big difference when the lake usually is BELOW the present pool during the prime months anyway...

Honestly, I'm on the fence about MinFlo. There are alternatives that could be "pleasing" to everyone involved. I'm not sure MinFlo is the answer to the problem, but would be better than NO flow for extended periods of time.

porter57,

Trout are not native to ANY tailwaters in the south. They were introduced as a "gift" from Uncle Sam for damming these streams and, basically, killing all the native species. The White, prior to the dam system, was a very different ecosystem. But what has resulted is some of the best tailwater trout, if not trout fishing in general, in the world. The economic impact if the trout go away is astounding. Recent surveys indicate the White tailwater system (excluding Taneycomo - this was an Arkansas survey) has an economic impact of around a QUATER BILLION DOLLARS per year.

There are some grass roots activities working towards saving these tailwaters and the industry, but organization has been slow paced to say the least. Opinions are so varied on all the issues that it is dfficult at best to get anything going. But we ALL need to wake up to the fact that we have to do SOMEthing - ANYthing - to keep the trout healthy and therefore keep the industry healthy.

[Danoinark]

Now, with Ronnie, John, and me on the water "releasing toxic fumes" you might want to watch for a BIG fish kill...

I understand Stearns is looking into this for their new quick inflatable PFD's..

Dano