Forum Index > Trail Talk > questions about fishing Olympic National Park/Forest
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12830 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostMon Aug 03, 2020 10:37 am 
80skeys wrote:
"... due to construction of dams along the Columbia river..."
Hydroelectric dams that don't provide for fish passage are one of a number of different factors that caused the declines in anadromous salmonid runs, but one of the most significant.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
80skeys
Member
Member


Joined: 22 Jul 2019
Posts: 183 | TRs | Pics
80skeys
Member
PostMon Aug 03, 2020 1:15 pm 
Brian Curtis wrote:
All the rivers in ONP eventually get too steep or have falls that are too high for fish passage. After the last ice age fish were only able to colonize as far upstream as the first fish passage barrier. All the high lakes in ONP are above fish passage barriers so trout had no way to get to any of them.
Ok, that explains it. Now it makes sense.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Brian R
Member
Member


Joined: 10 Feb 2018
Posts: 501 | TRs | Pics
Brian R
Member
PostMon Aug 03, 2020 8:45 pm 
I hiked to Charlia Lakes a couple years ago and was catching (and releasing) Cutthroat with almost every cast. Only problem is that they were all, without exception, extremely small/stunted from what I assume is an old overstock. Normally I wouldn't give away a location like this, but, a.) it's an effort kind of place to get to; and, b.) the lower lake could probably use a good cull.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16092 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostMon Aug 03, 2020 8:51 pm 
Kind of like a lot of lakes in the Sierra lots I’d barely legal brookies. Not much rainbows or goldens. Barbless hooks required have to let a lot loose but you can get enough bigger one for a meal. They are all hungry and would probably bite on a bare hook or currant. Just use a wallys world fly.

"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 1696 | TRs | Pics
Location: Silverdale, WA
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker
PostMon Aug 03, 2020 9:15 pm 
Brian R wrote:
I hiked to Charlia Lakes a couple years ago and was catching (and releasing) Cutthroat with almost every cast. Only problem is that they were all, without exception, extremely small/stunted from what I assume is an old overstock. Normally I wouldn't give away a location like this, but, a.) it's an effort kind of place to get to; and, b.) the lower lake could probably use a good cull.
Not from an overstock. The cutthroat are naturally reproducing. You aren't really giving up a secret. The lower lake shows up on the WDFW list of high lakes with overabundant fish populations.

that elitist from silverdale wanted to tell me that all carnes are bad--Studebaker Hoch
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Malachai Constant
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jan 2002
Posts: 16092 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back Again Like A Bad Penny
Malachai Constant
Member
PostMon Aug 03, 2020 9:38 pm 
To tell the truth I have not got a WA fishing license for years. I did when I had kids but it just bot my bowl of meat. I have got them in Canada and CA and would in MT or ID. Do not care for the fat fishery fish dropped the week before opening or the emaciated highland lakes fish. I am old and miss the fish of my youth. frown.gif

"You do not laugh when you look at the mountains, or when you look at the sea." Lafcadio Hearn
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?



Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Posts: 7464 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Hermitage
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?
PostMon Aug 03, 2020 11:11 pm 
The idea that fish populated downstream from lakes doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny if one knows the geological history of this area. Lakes were carved out by glaciers. This entire area was under miles of ice at one point. As the ice sheets retreated they left the large features such as puget Sound and Lake Washington and Lake Sammamish behind. Then the local glaciers also retreated and left the the mountain lakes behind. A great example of that we've seen in just the last 40 or 50 years is Pea Soup Lake on Mt. Daniel. So, if the lakes are simply depressions in the landscape carved out by glacial action and then they filled with water as the glaciers retreated, where did the fish come from? They didn't just spontaneously appear and there weren't any people around to plant them 12,000 years ago. Also, the vast majority of high lakes in the Olympics and Cascades were barren of fish until people came along and put them there in the last 100 years or so. A personal anecdote illustrating this: The Entiat river has a rather large falls on it just upstream from the junction with Ice Creek that not many people know about. Back before the Wolverine fire (2015, was it?) the lower stretches of the Entiat were great fishing (maybe they still are?). So, one day I was hiking back from Ice lakes and decided to get a little fishing in where the Ice Creek trail crosses the Entiat, which is a considerable distance upstream from where Ice Creek actually joins the river. I didn't know about the existence of the falls at this point. No luck, not a fish in sight, which I thought was really odd given how good the fishing was downstream a ways and the river looks really "fishy" in this area with lots of boulders and nice pools. So, I worked my way downstream along the bank, fishing as I went and getting totally blanked. Then I found the falls. Once I worked my way around the falls and began fishing on the downstream side I had the great fishing I'd always had in the Entiat. It was during this trip that I also stumbled across Gordon Stewart's cabin, another feature of the area that not many people (including me) knew about. I'm sure it's all ashes now...

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Pyrites
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Sep 2014
Posts: 1884 | TRs | Pics
Location: South Sound
Pyrites
Member
PostMon Aug 03, 2020 11:22 pm 
Lower Charlia before the Buckhorn Wilderness was created had a small population of planted Atlantic Salmon. They were quite fun to catch, and for a few of the medium sized ones, tasty. Best.

Keep Calm and Carry On? Heck No. Stay Excited and Get Outside!
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 1696 | TRs | Pics
Location: Silverdale, WA
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker
PostTue Aug 04, 2020 6:02 am 
Pyrites wrote:
Lower Charlia before the Buckhorn Wilderness was created had a small population of planted Atlantic Salmon.
Those lakes have an interesting history. They both had stunted populations of eastern brook until they were poisoned out using rotenone in the early 70s. He had identified the lakes as the only ones suitable for scuds (freshwater shrimp) in that area that did not appear to already have them. After the EB were removed the lakes were stocked with freshwater shrimp, though I've heard a rumor that shrimp had been there all along and recovered naturally once the EBs were removed. The lakes were then stocked with RB (upper) and Atlantic salmon (lower) which grew to very large sizes. Unfortunately, the the next biologist responsible for those lakes made the horrible decision to stock them with Twin Lakes (westslope) cutthroat and now they are full of stunted fish again.

that elitist from silverdale wanted to tell me that all carnes are bad--Studebaker Hoch
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Brian R
Member
Member


Joined: 10 Feb 2018
Posts: 501 | TRs | Pics
Brian R
Member
PostTue Aug 04, 2020 9:00 am 
The upper lake is little more than a tarn, I'm surprised there are any fish at all. The lower lake is lovely and deep. I may try to access it cross-country via NF Tunnel Creek soon. I have no experience as a wildlife biologist, so I have a couple questions. First, why would a fish population remain "stunted" after multiple generations? Wouldn't competition/selection return a population to its coded size in fairly short order? Now, I understand how a planting of small phenotype fish might prevail after decades, but anadromous fish seem pretty homogeneous by species, so I suspect their code isn't that malleable. Did the use of Rotanone damage survivors? Do they eventually speciate in isolated lakes? Second, is it possible post-glacial high lakes that sit above impassible obstacles were planted by birds? I've seen hawks and even eagles drop live fish several times over salt water.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
80skeys
Member
Member


Joined: 22 Jul 2019
Posts: 183 | TRs | Pics
80skeys
Member
PostTue Aug 04, 2020 10:12 am 
Bedivere wrote:
So, if the lakes are simply depressions in the landscape carved out by glacial action and then they filled with water as the glaciers retreated, where did the fish come from?
Yes, other guy already explained, there's no way for downstream fish to make it up past [natural] fish barriers - high waterfalls and the like. So, now I understand why those lakes would have had no natural fish populations. Regarding fishing in California, I indeed have caught the small 6"-7" trout in the Kings Canyon area. The stream that goes through that area seems to have quite a few. I'm assuming because not many people hike up in there and so there's no much fishing pressure on them. Me and my friend were the only ones there the time we went. Those fish aren't stocked, so it's good to see a healthy population. But, that's the only place where I've had any fishing success in California. Regarding stocking of fish, I'm not sure what I think about it. It's probably not a good idea. On the other hand, if you're stocking bodies of water that hold native trout and you're adding not-native trout (like introducing brown trout into native brookie rainbow habitat) then maybe that's not so bad. I don't know. In New Mexico, there's two main types of trout: browns and rainbows. The browns are all wild - they were introduced in the 1800s and have been left to naturally reproduce since then. The rainbows are a combination of hatchery-raised and wild. The hatchery ones are dumber, easier to catch, and tend to have more visible genetic mutation problems on a small percentage of them. That's why I always prefer catching brown trout when I'm in NM or CO. They fight better, harder to catch, leaner, seem healthier.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?



Joined: 25 Jul 2008
Posts: 7464 | TRs | Pics
Location: The Hermitage
Bedivere
Why Do Witches Burn?
PostTue Aug 04, 2020 10:13 am 
Brian R wrote:
The upper lake is little more than a tarn, I'm surprised there are any fish at all. The lower lake is lovely and deep. I may try to access it cross-country via NF Tunnel Creek soon. I have no experience as a wildlife biologist, so I have a couple questions. First, why would a fish population remain "stunted" after multiple generations? Wouldn't competition/selection return a population to its coded size in fairly short order? Now, I understand how a planting of small phenotype fish might prevail after decades, but anadromous fish seem pretty homogeneous by species, so I suspect their code isn't that malleable. Did the use of Rotanone damage survivors?
Many species of trout reproduce so prolifically that they outrun the available food supply. They can survive on the barest minimums of food but it stunts them. My friends and I call them "snake fish." Long skinny bodies with big heads. At least they're easy to catch, they're starving so they'll hit anything that touches the water. This happens in a lot of lakes. It's pretty much impossible to fish them out. A single female trout of smallish size can lay several hundred eggs. It only takes one or two females and you have a few hundred new mouths to feed.
Brian R wrote:
Second, is it possible post-glacial high lakes that sit above impassible obstacles were planted by birds? I've seen hawks and even eagles drop live fish several times over salt water.
I've heard this speculated about before. I suppose it's possible, but think about the actual process. A bird has to catch a fish somewhere where there are fish then that fish has to survive long enough to get dropped in a lake. How long can a fish survive out of water? How badly will it be injured by the bird during the process of getting caught? And finally, trout are egg layers. It takes a male and a female to create viable offspring as the eggs are fertilized AFTER they are laid. So both a male and female trout would have to be dropped by a gentle, clumsy raptor in the same lake from a nearby source. How likely is that? And what lakes above natural obstacles had fish in them before people put them there? I'm not aware of any.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Brian R
Member
Member


Joined: 10 Feb 2018
Posts: 501 | TRs | Pics
Brian R
Member
PostTue Aug 04, 2020 10:26 am 
Thanks for the info, very much appreciated. Re a bird dropping a lone live fish in a lake above an obstacle, I do know some fish species will reproduce asexually in the absence of a mate, e.g. sharks. But still, yes, seems implausible.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 1696 | TRs | Pics
Location: Silverdale, WA
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker
PostTue Aug 04, 2020 12:54 pm 
Brian R wrote:
I have no experience as a wildlife biologist, so I have a couple questions. First, why would a fish population remain "stunted" after multiple generations? Wouldn't competition/selection return a population to its coded size in fairly short order? Now, I understand how a planting of small phenotype fish might prevail after decades, but anadromous fish seem pretty homogeneous by species, so I suspect their code isn't that malleable.
There isn't really a coded size for fish, or if there is it is much smaller than you might expect. They only have to be large enough to sexually mature which the trout in our high lakes typically do at age 3. For the first couple years they will grow quickly, but once they start producing gametes the energy from any food they take in goes to reproduction first. It takes a lot of energy to produce eggs or milt and it takes a lot of energy to either spawn or resorb the gametes if they can't spawn. In a lake full of stunted fish there is just enough food to allow fish to spawn, but not enough extra for them to put on significant growth and they end up stunted.
Quote:
Did the use of Rotanone damage survivors? Do they eventually speciate in isolated lakes?
There are, hopefully, no surviving fish when a lake is treated. Rotenone can harm native amphibians, but they do tend to repopulate treated lakes quickly. I don't know how long it takes trout or char to speciate in isolation. Definitely not in the 100-140 odd years they have been isolated in some of our high lakes.

that elitist from silverdale wanted to tell me that all carnes are bad--Studebaker Hoch
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 1696 | TRs | Pics
Location: Silverdale, WA
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker
PostTue Aug 04, 2020 1:04 pm 
Bedivere wrote:
And what lakes above natural obstacles had fish in them before people put them there? I'm not aware of any.
There are quite a few lakes, streams, and rivers with native fish that are above what are now natural obstacles. That can happen when a fish passage barrier is formed after fish have already colonized upper reaches. During, and following the last ice age there were ice-dammed lakes. When those dams broke there would have been opportunities for fish to spread to otherwise inaccessible waters. There is, however, no fossil evidence to prove there were any fish in the great Glacial Lake Missoula.

that elitist from silverdale wanted to tell me that all carnes are bad--Studebaker Hoch
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Trail Talk > questions about fishing Olympic National Park/Forest
  Happy Birthday Crazyforthetrail, Exposed!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum