PDA

View Full Version : Proposed Changes to the Hiwassee


waterwolf
08-27-2010, 10:33 PM
Unless a major tsunami hits TWRA this will happen next year. Anything proposed has already been basically rubber stamped, and it appears as though the hiwassee is moving to a new category. I heard they were ceasing brown trout stockings after this year, and going to catchable rainbows only, and only during fall/winter. Sorry to hear it for the Hiwassee folks, and will be attending any and all meetings to voice my opposition to this latest stunt by the crew posing as Coldwater fisheries managers.

http://tndeerblog.blogspot.com/2010/08/twra-to-present-sportfishing-changes.html

white95v6
08-28-2010, 09:36 AM
and removing the Trophy section of the river.:mad: i have never fished this river. but man when you have a good thing. why mess it up.

pineman19
08-28-2010, 10:31 AM
They have to keep the meat hunters happy. Delayed harvest doesn't impress me much either, the regulations on the Clinch seem to be much better for growing quality trout. Stocking fat stockers and letting people catch them over and over till they die isn't fishery management IMO.

Neal

Bfish
08-28-2010, 10:33 AM
... but man when you have a good thing. why mess it up.

Trout don't grow very much if at all in the Hiwassee, especially in the trophy section. At least that is what TWRA and their data support.

pineman19
08-28-2010, 10:54 AM
Is it the warmer water temps? I have only fished the HI twice, but it seems to have a large amount of aquatic insects.

Neal

Knothead
08-28-2010, 02:15 PM
http://http://news.tennesseeanytime.org/node/5818
This link tells of all regulation changes. Taken from www.tnwildlife.org (http://www.tnwildlife.org).

pineman19
08-28-2010, 02:26 PM
Here is a link for a pdf file that gives reasons for the proposed changes for 2011.

http://news.tennesseeanytime.org/system/files/2011-12%20Recommendations-Web%20site.pdf

2weightfavorite
08-28-2010, 03:55 PM
In my own opinion the HI was a largely put and take fishery anyway. After fishing it for 2 years when I lived closer to it I rarely caught a fish over 14 inches. I never caught brown...ever... Now I usually do not agree with the state biologists, however I do nnot believe this has anything to do with "the meet hunters" and their haappiness. If a river doesnt stay cool enough, which the HI rarely does, during the summer months, why stock it with the excpectation that the trout will hold over? The HI is a beautiful river with great hatches...problem is for close to a decade it has been a mediocre trout fishery at best.

pineman19
08-28-2010, 04:05 PM
2weight,

Maybe it's not about pleasing people who mainly looking to fill their limits, but they are still going to stock trout, sounds like mainly rainbows, so I am sure certain people will still be happy. DH will make some people happy as well, just depends on the anglers preference. I am no prude, I have caught quite a few stockers in my time, many 20 minutes from my door at Nances Ferry on the Holston. I started having some success on the Clinch last year and I enjoy catching the Browns and Bows that have pretty much grown up in the river after being stocked as fingerlings. These trout are so much healthier looking and fight better than most stockers that I have caught. I pretty much stopped fishing the Holston after catching some on the Clinch, so I have little interest in driving nearly 2 hours to catch stockers on the HI.

Neal

tennswede
08-28-2010, 06:52 PM
It's a misnomer to think that there aren't many holdovers in the river. There are plenty of Browns in there as history has showed. I know many locals who can tell you about it. I also get reports about 68 degree water as low as Reliance during this heat wave. Nah, it's not nearly as bad as people want to think. I'm with Neal, it's all about making room for more P&T fishing. I guess that's what is in demand.

As a side note, the river has fished real good this year, I have personally caught better fish than in many years and so has several others I know. I think the Hiwassee is a good brown trout fishery, what people forget that the browns are not nearly as easy to catch as the bows. Especially not when they reach 14" and above. It becomes a high water deal and nocturnal feeding habits.

pineman19
08-28-2010, 07:00 PM
Hans,

Did you read TWRA's response as to why they are changing things. Said the locals and guides agreed there were no holdovers in the Trophy Section. I would believe what people are telling you on the stream. Heck, I never believe the govt., I work for them, LOL (not TWRA).

Neal

tennswede
08-28-2010, 07:08 PM
Neal,

I haven't really read anything about it, and no I haven't heard from any guides. I can't speak for em' but I think Rocky Cox still fishes down there. Anyway, several browns have been caught this year in the 17" to 21" bracket, albeit not all in the trophy section. I'm pretty sure these browns have been in there a while. Don Denney, who I know personally can probably shine more light on this river than any electroshocking crew can. Just look at his web site under his photo albums. That is evidence enough. I used to frequent Reliance Fly and Tackle when they were still in business. They had some pictures of big browns from the river. I think it's as simple as this. It's not easy to catch big browns consistently and people need easy catches or they won't come, hence preference for rainbows. It's all about catching lots of fish.

http://hiwassee.net

tennswede
08-28-2010, 07:28 PM
Trout don't grow very much if at all in the Hiwassee, especially in the trophy section. At least that is what TWRA and their data support.

So where do the big fish on don denney's website come from?

http://hiwassee.net

old east tn boy
08-28-2010, 07:47 PM
I fished the HI last August at the Stair Steps. Late in the evening I got into a seam of fast water and pulled about a dozen 10-12 inch Browns out on a BHPT nymph. Rest of the day was sporadic Rainbows also on the nymph. I fished a weekday which is the norm for me and only saw two others on the river. The water was warm compared to the Clinch but the pulses out of Appalachia hydro plant every other hour were keeping things bearable for the fish. Every fish I caught looked healthy and were returned to the river ASAP. I caught about 20 fish during six hours of fishing. I hope to get back down there in a week or two, especially since I have heard better fishing reports about HI this year. Whatever TWRA does I just hope the trout fishing remains good. HI is such a beautiful river to fish it would be a shame if things undergo a radical change just for the benefit of any certain group.

tennswede
08-28-2010, 07:54 PM
Old East TN Boy,

Just remember that it is true that right now through sometime in October it is the hottest and slowest time in the river. It is still not bad but just to put expectations in perspective. It will never be SoHo or Clinch but it is not deserving the bad rap its getting from a lot of people.

Sure, you will catch a lot of stockers but you have that on other tailwaters also. I do think prime time for the Hi is late winter early spring though.

waterwolf
08-28-2010, 10:17 PM
This is just my opinion, but this move by JIm Habera and his merry men, is just another example of the mismanagement they have practiced on all our area coldwater fisheries. You would be hard pressed to find another coldwater fisheries team who is seemingly as far off as this bunch of clowns is.

I guess we can add it to the list of idiotic moves and statements they have made over the years.

Second best idiotic move for this year, first being the stocking of trout in the Big Pigeon River, which spikes to trout killing temps before the end of May every year.

We all, even those like me who don't fish the Hiwassee much, need to rise up and defeat this bogus proposal before it goes any further. I will try to gather a contact list of commissioners, and also gather public meetings date, we all need to join together and not let another fishery go down the drain.

Bfish
08-28-2010, 10:48 PM
This is just my opinion, but this move by JIm Habera ....
Hiwassee is not in Jim's region, as it is in Region III.

Bfish
08-28-2010, 10:55 PM
Is it the warmer water temps?

A good review of the issues that limit fish growth is discussed in the management plan:
http://www.tennessee.gov/twra/fish/StreamRiver/tailtrout/Hiwassee%20Plan.pdf

Also worth reading:
http://www2.tntech.edu/fish/PDF/Hiwassee1.pdf

and a creel survey:
http://www2.tntech.edu/fish/PDF/Hiwassee%202004.pdf

Bfish
08-28-2010, 11:47 PM
So where do the big fish on don denney's website come from?
4 decent browns since 2008, out of 45,000 or so adult browns stocked and another 50,000 or so fingerlings. Dismal results.

If you want trout to have growth on the Hiwassee, IMO, you need a limedoser, routine gravel enhancement, and better water temperature management. None of those things are proposed, so creel restrictions of any kind really are not warranted, IMO.

Yes I am local.

tennswede
08-29-2010, 12:29 AM
There are no lack of nutrients for brown trout on the Hiwassee. Browns as you know prefer a diet of fish and other critters, not so much insects. I just don't believe all the statements from several internet sources about no hold over browns, and the browns are all dying. Brown trout can survive up to at least 78 degrees. They won't die if you don't' fish for them at that temp. As for limedosers don't think it would do anything for brown trout. In my native Sweden they are used to raise ph levels due to acid rain, don't know if that is really a specific brown trout method. It's more of a survival for all species. I don't think the HI is near the acid problems we have at the higher mountain ridges. Don't know for sure on that but it's not relevant for this discussion.

I simply disagree that there are only few decent browns in the river. Of course it all depends on what you consider a decent brown. My adversity for this whole change it's not so much creel restrictions but more of the artificial no bait that appeals to me. It's nice to have a stretch of a river in this state of that size with stricter regs. Making it a Tellico Zoo is not my cup of tea.

waterwolf
08-29-2010, 06:05 AM
A good review of the issues that limit fish growth is discussed in the management plan:
http://www.tennessee.gov/twra/fish/StreamRiver/tailtrout/Hiwassee%20Plan.pdf

Also worth reading:
http://www2.tntech.edu/fish/PDF/Hiwassee1.pdf

and a creel survey:
http://www2.tntech.edu/fish/PDF/Hiwassee%202004.pdf
The problem with the above links is who they are from and how many times in the past those sources have been completely out of touch with reality.

The TNtech study on the Clinch said that pressure had nothing to do with the issues we experienced in the fish holdover, well, several years later it was found that pressure did indeed play the largest role, hence we got slots to help the river. THat is just one example in a long list of the issues with their "studies".

I do not have the time, to go into TWRA and their pitiful management plans, as they historically make no sense to anyone who has a general idea of what is going on, on any individual river. They seem to be driven more by political factors then anything remotely scientifically based.

The Hiwassee has sustained itself just fine for years, and yes there are issues with the river. However, to completely switch strategies makes no sense, to anyone other then a TWRA shill or the baitfishing community. I would have no problem with a delayed harvest below Reliance, but from Reliance upstream to the dam should remain the way it is right now, in terms of regulations.

David Knapp
08-29-2010, 10:07 AM
Having fished the Hiwassee extensively (wading) for a couple of years when I was in Chattanooga, I know for a fact that there are decent numbers of nice browns in there. Personally I have only caught fish up to around 16 or 17 inches but that is just because my skills weren't up to the challenge of the big boys. I have seen big fish and know that it is just a matter of looking in certain spots to find them again... That river is definitely capable of growing big browns, especially if there were river-wide restrictions on keeping browns that were enforced. I have never seen TWRA actually checking licenses on the HI despite seeing their trucks out and about. Just doesn't seem to be a priority. Lots of people catch their limit, head back to the truck to put them in a cooler and then do it again. Naturally, the lack of enforcement is not helping the fish hold over since too many are being caught before they have the chance to grow...not to mention that the rainbows they stock seem extra stupid on the HI...:rolleyes: :biggrin:

tennswede
08-29-2010, 11:59 AM
David,

Exactly my sentiment, I know the river is not a prime brown trout fishery but it is not as bad as people want to make it. I really think it's a matter of catering to p&t fishing. It would be more honest just to say it the way it is. We are too quick to judge a fishery with browns in it. You with your skill set knows what it takes to become a brown trout hunter. Most people have neither the skill or the patience to consistently catch larger browns every time they go. If they don't catch anything pretty instantly they say : This river doesn't have any good browns in it. I am constantly amazed at the amount of fishermen I see, both on mountain streams and tailwaters who fish for twenty minutes and then give up. Patience is really lacking in today's society. Instant gratification in the form of stocker bows, is the new game in town.

pineman19
08-29-2010, 12:32 PM
The deal with rainbows is interesting. Have you ever seen a restaurant that says they have the best brown trout in town or any other trout for that matter. I have nothing against rainbows, they are a beautiful fish when they grow up in the wild. The rainbow is the ubiquitous trout. Many people see the rainbow as their opportunity to catch their own trout dinner. Plus the fact that they fight pretty well, frequently jump out of the water. As a result the rainbow will always be the primary stocked trout, it's what the majority of people want when the purchase a trout stamp.

The Mad River in Ohio is one example of a change in mgt. I caught my first trout (rainbow) there in the mid-seventies. it was a put-in-take fisher for rainbows, although there were some holdovers and maybe even some managed to reproduce. Some people thought browns were the better species for a sustainable trout fishery on the Mad. They changed over to Browns in the later 80's and they have done pretty well and many believe they reproduce naturally. One difference in Ohio, trout fishing was a minority since there are few streams that can hold trout for any period of time. The fish & wildlife people decided to save money, they didn't renew the leased areas where the public could fish on private land. There wasn't a big outcry from the public since trout fisherman were a minority. That isn't the case in TN or NC. I have no idea how many trout stamps are sold in a year, but I imagine it's a significant source of income for TWRA. Times are tough for state agencies and hunting/fishing license sales are not going up, so they will sometimes make mgt. choices based on license sales IMO.

Sorry for long post, just my opinion on how game & fish agencies operate.

Neal

tennswede
08-29-2010, 12:42 PM
Neal,


I agree, and rainbows are great but not all the time and everywhere. Slovenia is a prime example. Slovenia a mountainous country in south central Europe somewhat resembling a Montana in miniature. They have ruined several rivers with stocker bows that grows to huge proportions. All this in detriment to the native Adriatic grayling and browns. They do this so the tourists are happy. Happy tourists equals revenue. We have the same sentiment here in TN although at a smaller scale. I have nothing against put and take fishing and I like DH on some streams. I just don't understand why the only river of any size in TN can't have a meager 3 mile section set aside as artificial single hook only. I enjoy the less pressure in the trophy section and it is one of the prettiest sections of the river. We have both Tellico and Citico not too far away for the P&T and the rest of the river is mostly stocker bow fishing. I guess my grief is more of the fact that I like a section of river not overcrowded with people. But then on the other hand, if most people are buying trout stamps only because of the chance to catch stocker bows for supper then we don't have a chance in saving anything. I afraid we just have to do the best we can with what's left. Can't wait for my upcoming NM trip, will be gone ten days. I'm curious to see what the litter situation, the crowd factor etc will be out there for comparison.

Bfish
08-29-2010, 02:46 PM
The problem with the above links is who they are from and how many times in the past those sources have been completely out of touch with reality.

The TNtech study on the Clinch said that pressure had nothing to do with the issues we experienced in the fish holdover, well, several years later it was found that pressure did indeed play the largest role, hence we got slots to help the river.... TWRA is data driven. I am willing to bet that if they would say that during the initial study pressure was a none issue (because that is what the data showed). Later pressure increased and that is what the follow-up study showed. If you want changes, you better have data or show how TWRA's data is flawed.

...The Hiwassee has sustained itself just fine for years, and yes there are issues with the river. However, to completely switch strategies makes no sense,... Despite the various restrictive limits that have been tired, essentially the Hiwassee is still a put and take fishery. Why not classify it as what it is, rather than have regulations that no traction?

Bfish
08-29-2010, 03:07 PM
There are no lack of nutrients for brown trout on the Hiwassee.... There is very little to no growth (with the exception of less than 1%), particular in the lower reaches of the "quality" zone.

As for limedosers don't think it would do anything for brown trout. Calcium is extremely limited in the Hiwassee. Liming would increase productivity, and you expect to see denser bug populations along with growth of the trout (both rainbow and brown). Gravel enhancement could also provide a similar bumping of the productivity.

I simply disagree that there are only few decent browns in the river. Of course it all depends on what you consider a decent brown. My adversity for this whole change it's not so much creel restrictions but more of the artificial no bait that appeals to me. It's nice to have a stretch of a river in this state of that size with stricter regs. Making it a Tellico Zoo is not my cup of tea. Show proof, like I said above TWRA is data driven. Sure a few sizable browns show up (not from the lower reaches of the quality zone). But when the state is stocking 15,000 adults and 15,000 fingerlings per year, yet there is only a couple of sizable browns caught each year, it makes you wonder why to continue to fight a loosing battle. Looking through my records, I have caught 64 browns this year, largest being 14" and the majority of them are around 7-8". My boat's largest brown this year is 16". I would call that pathetic results.

Your stricter regs, may be nice, but they are not doing anything to help the fishery out (at least that is what TWRA's data is showing).

IMO if you want larger browns (and rainbows), the upper river is what should be protected say ramp to ramp. Leaving a section above and below for catch and keep (which TWRA data show only 33% of caught trout were kept).

TWRA's data also show that very few people fish the lower stretch of the "quality" zone. Is it an access issue or lack of fish issue? I tend to think it is more lack of fish issue (size and numbers).

Murray trout bum
08-29-2010, 08:09 PM
TWRA's data also show that very few people fish the lower stretch of the "quality" zone. Is it an access issue or lack of fish issue? I tend to think it is more lack of fish issue (size and numbers).[/QUOTE]


I find the lower quality zone fishes just fine, for me anyway. This year alone I have landed many rainbows from 13 inches-14 1/2 inches and 2 browns measuring 15 inches. I have had many 30 to 60 fish days from the lower quality zone too. Access has never been an issue for me either.

Bfish
08-29-2010, 09:00 PM
Murray trout bum, I am curious as to where your fishing in the lower quality zone.

waterwolf
08-29-2010, 10:53 PM
TWRA might be "data" driven, but making up data to fit an agenda doesn't constitute good management.

I will say again, if you or anyone else misunderstood me the first times. TWRA Coldwater fisheries management, and the management team manage our resources like a bunch of bafoons. It is embarrassing to go to meetings and listen to these people, especially seeing how we pay their salaries.

tennswede
08-30-2010, 08:33 AM
I say it again: I don't believe limedosers will do anything for Browns, Why? Browns mainly feed on forage fish, other critters when available, not so much onf flies. Sure we can catch them on flies, but it doesn't matter how much we as fly fisherman like to romantisize, browns do not grow big on flies. Limedosers are not a bad thing but their primary benefit is not growth of brown trout. I have experience from the 1980's with limedosers in Scandinavia as we had the earliest and the most severe acid rain problem in Europe.

As for not being satiesfied with the fishery, I like it the way it is exactly due to the fact that few people fish the quality zone. Why do we have to make everything in to a zoo? Of course that is a whole other subject. We just have to agree to disagree. I am for the status quo on the river.

Knothead
08-30-2010, 09:27 AM
I will continue to fish it, no matter what the regulations. I will enjoy the scenery and the friendship of those who fish it. I have seen the TWRA officers checking licenses on occasions. Remember, there are only one or two officers per county, generally. How many deputy sheriff officers are there per county? Puts it in perspective, doesn't it? Our TU chapter had Dr. Betolli give us the run-down on his research but the research was done during one of the worst years for rainfall, causing it to be skewed on the negative side. I know of a fellow in Georgia who guided on the river many years ago and tells of clients haveing 100 fish days. Not the best river in the country but I'll take it, warts and whiskers included.
Oh yes, so far, my best rainbow is 17 inches and my best brown is 12 inches. I continue to fish the river because I know there are bigger fish in there. I've seen them. Just a matter of time!

waterwolf
08-30-2010, 09:35 AM
My complaints with TWRA aren't the GW's, I understand their limitaitons and them being stretched very thin. My complaint is with the coldwater fisheries team, they have made incorrect judgements, statements, and decisions for as long as I can remember.

Knothead
08-30-2010, 01:15 PM
The TWRA is soliciting comments for its 2011 sport fishing proposals. This is an opportunity for the public to share ideas and concerns about fishing regulations with TWRA staff.

Public comments will be considered by fisheries managers and may be presented as proposals for regulation changes. Comments may be submitted by mail to: Sport Fish Comments, TWRA, Fisheries Management Division, P.O. 40747, Nashville, TN 37204 or emailed to TWRA.Comment@tn.gov (TWRA.Comment@tn.gov). Please include “Sport Fish Comments” on the subject line of emailed submissions.

This comment period concerning sport fish regulations will be open until Friday, Oct. 15, 2010.
Note that comments are accepted until the date given. If you disagree with the proposed changes, let them know.

Murray trout bum
08-30-2010, 07:48 PM
Murray trout bum, I am curious as to where your fishing in the lower quality zone.

I never made the post to give out specific fishing spots. I'm just saying the study was not correct. If you ever see me on the river, introduce yourself and I'll be happy to point you into a few spots, most I'm sure you know of. One other thing, most of my better fish are caught during a pulse. Just another reason I would like to see a constant flow.

Bfish
08-30-2010, 08:10 PM
I never made the post to give out specific fishing spots. .... Just another reason I would like to see a constant flow.
My intent was not to garner spot info. On the lower end of the quality zone, there are two stocking locations, I was just curious to see if you were fishing near the stocking locations which would skew your catch compared to say a 1/4 mile upstream. PS constant flow is not going to happen, not enough water available to sustain it. I generally fish from my raft with others, or my pontoon if solo. When I wade, it is usually in the areas that few others are willing to access. It would be my pleasure to chat with you.

Murray trout bum
08-30-2010, 08:37 PM
My intent was not to garner spot info. On the lower end of the quality zone, there are two stocking locations, I was just curious to see if you were fishing near the stocking locations which would skew your catch compared to say a 1/4 mile upstream. PS constant flow is not going to happen, not enough water available to sustain it. I generally fish from my raft with others, or my pontoon if solo. When I wade, it is usually in the areas that few others are willing to access. It would be my pleasure to chat with you.

No harm done. I have been fishing1/4 mile upstream early in the year and lately closer to the areas where the stocking takes place. The areas closer to the stocking do produce to most numbers, but upstream has produced some heart betting moments. I'm aware the constant flow will not happen, I'll still like to bring it up when I get a chance.

Bfish
08-30-2010, 08:56 PM
I say it again: I don't believe limedosers will do anything for Browns, Why? Browns mainly feed on forage fish, other critters when available, not so much onf flies.... There is a growth problem on the Hiwassee (along with temperature). The stocked browns (6" and fingerling) are not growing. By increasing the limited lime in the water, you increase the biomass of not just insect hatches (which will help grow the browns till they get large enough to switch to being a piscivore), but also increase the population of forage fish that they could feed on. Very few minnows in the Hiwassee currently.

I like it the way it is exactly due to the fact that few people fish the quality zone. Calling it a quality zone is a complete misnomer. Nothing quality about the stretch from below the steps to Lost creek, except for the scenery. You will never see a "zoo", IMO, as the limited access to that are limits the number of people.

tennswede
08-30-2010, 09:08 PM
Ok you win, I'm not sure we are talking about the same issues anymore, I guess my idea of quality fly fishing is not the same as yours. I thought you wanted bigger fish. If you are making it a DH like Tellico you are not going to get big fish since you claim the river can't sustain anything large to speak off. We will basically then get the same situation as on Tellico, more and more of rainbows. I can't see no quality improvement in changing the river regulations to a DH. I can however see a point with a slot limit.

The easiest quality enhancement they can do is to change the name then, since that seem to bother you. Let's just call it the peace and serenity zone.

I'm also not agreeing with you that it won't become a zoo. The walk from Big Bend parking area can be done in 10, 15 min, and there will be hordes of people. Time to fish somewhere else I guess.

No point in arguing this matter anymore, we just don't agree on this. I do however wonder what makes you feel that the best option is to go DH?

Bfish
08-30-2010, 11:03 PM
Ok you win, I'm not sure we are talking about the same issues anymore, I guess my idea of quality fly fishing is not the same as yours. I thought you wanted bigger fish. No winners or losers, we are just discussing issues.

If you are making it a DH like Tellico you are not going to get big fish since you claim the river can't sustain anything large to speak off. We will basically then get the same situation as on Tellico, more and more of rainbows. I can't see no quality improvement in changing the river regulations to a DH. I can however see a point with a slot limit. I don't see the point of DH or slot, IMO, neither will work because it is a put and take fishery. Until you get a decent amount of fish showing growth there is no need for restrictive size or creel limits over the general state regs.

The easiest quality enhancement they can do is to change the name then, since that seem to bother you. Let's just call it the peace and serenity zone. good one:biggrin:

I'm also not agreeing with you that it won't become a zoo. The walk from Big Bend parking area can be done in 10, 15 min, and there will be hordes of people. Time to fish somewhere else I guess. Why would the bucket brigade walk 10-15 minutes to catch essential stockers, when they can park roadside and do the same. Fix the growth problem, then you may have point, but until then I just don't see it becoming a zoo.

. I do however wonder what makes you feel that the best option is to go DH? No fan of the DH, however I do have thoughts on increasing bigger (and more) trout. Absent lime doser, gravel enhancement, and more cold water, the best section which has the most potential for growth of larger trout is the upper section. Powerhouse to Towee should be a quality zone, possible reducing it ramp to Towee to allow more catch and keep opportunities (as the powerhouse IMO is a largely popular catch and keep area). That stretch has less temperature issues and the trout get feed entrained shad. Just my opinion.

waterwolf
08-31-2010, 08:07 AM
I don't buy this notion that the fish in the Hiwassee are incapable of growing from year to year, especially from Reliance upstream to the powerhouse.

In fact it is almost laughable, when I stop to really think about it. The Hiwassee has fantastic insect hatches, probably the best of any of our tailwaters, add to that a large population of crayfish and sculpins. So when it comes to forage base slowing growth down in the river, that certainly doesn't make sense.

Water temps do warm during late summer, but it is of short duration, much like the Holston below Cherokee. Which for anyone who fishes the Holston knows the growth of those fish is not effected by the warmer temps. I would also bet that the water temps below Cherokee warm to higher temps each year more so then in the Hiwassee on average. The Holston generally runs in the 70's for a period of several months before cooling back down, where as the Hiwassee seems to peak in the high 60's and maybe just a click over 70.

This whole thing stinks of politics, and I would love to see some actual data to support these wild claims which keep being touted.

tennswede
08-31-2010, 09:09 AM
Jim,

Couldn't have said it better myself. Unfortunately this change probably will happen regardless of what we think. It's sad to see it happen. It will become a winter fishery for me primarily I guess.

waterwolf
08-31-2010, 09:14 AM
Jim,

Couldn't have said it better myself. Unfortunately this change probably will happen regardless of what we think. It's sad to see it happen. It will become a winter fishery for me primarily I guess.
It can be stopped, things like this have been stopped before. Keep your head up, and gather the troops. It is time to send letters, call commissioners, and be ready to go to public meetings and speak your mind.

I have contacted some buddies with TVA fisheries to try and help get some info regarding their findings, they are usually far more accurate and paint a much more balanced and unbiased survey of the situation.

Bfish
08-31-2010, 11:05 AM
I don't buy this notion that the fish in the Hiwassee are incapable of growing from year to year, especially from Reliance upstream to the powerhouse. Again I will say TWRA is data driven, and their data shows no growth for part of the year, and slow to no growth the remainder of year (depending on where in the river).

The Hiwassee has fantastic insect hatches, probably the best of any of our tailwaters, add to that a large population of crayfish and sculpins. So when it comes to forage base slowing growth down in the river, that certainly doesn't make sense. It does have nice hatches. Crayfish are noticeable rare, IMO due to the lack of calcium. Sculpins, I do not see any affect as the trout never get large enough to eat them. To me it is frustrating that the trout are not growing. I tend to think it has to do with lack ability to feed when the generators are off and of course the temperature issue stressing them.

Bfish
08-31-2010, 11:08 AM
I have contacted some buddies with TVA fisheries to try and help get some info regarding their findings, they are usually far more accurate and paint a much more balanced and unbiased survey of the situation. FYI For Gary Jenkins brown trout work back in the day, he had to transport Clinch River Browns in, cause he could not find any brown trout large enough to use for his study.

Bfish
08-31-2010, 11:16 AM
I would love to see some actual data to support these wild claims which keep being touted. May want to re-look at some of those links I previously posted (and that you immediately pooped).

waterwolf
08-31-2010, 01:43 PM
Again I will say TWRA is data driven, and their data shows no growth for part of the year, and slow to no growth the remainder of year (depending on where in the river).

It does have nice hatches. Crayfish are noticeable rare, IMO due to the lack of calcium. Sculpins, I do not see any affect as the trout never get large enough to eat them. To me it is frustrating that the trout are not growing. I tend to think it has to do with lack ability to feed when the generators are off and of course the temperature issue stressing them.
TWRA might be data driven, but using flawed and inaccurate data does not result in good management decisions. It has never worked for them and the resources in the past, and will not work for the resource in this case either.

Suggesting that the trout in the Hiwassee can't feed when the generators are off is pretty hilarious. I guess all the rising fish are just gulping air to survive. :rolleyes:


FYI For Gary Jenkins brown trout work back in the day, he had to transport Clinch River Browns in, cause he could not find any brown trout large enough to use for his study.
I guess the folks who have had their picture snapped for decades with nice browns actually caught them somewhere else, rather then the Hiwassee.

May want to re-look at some of those links I previously posted (and that you immediately pooped).

Yes, that data and the paper it is printed on is not worth wiping ones _____ with. It has been proven over and over again on most every tailwater that TWRA and TTU are completely naive and virtually incompetent when it comes to understanding the river. If it isn't those, then there ideas are totally driven by political factors.

Remember these are the clowns that said the Holston could never support trout year round. Boy that was already proven to be false, and now is blatantly obviously wrong. However, they still harp on the same old uneducated opinions rather then using common sense and factual information.

Like I said post some serious data which is done by someone or an organization who has some shred of credibility.

Bfish
08-31-2010, 09:42 PM
...post some serious data which is done by someone or an organization who has some shred of credibility. How is the data political? Additionally you have not provide any credible reason on why the data is flawed. To me it sounds like you don't like the results of TWRA data, so your just looking for any excuse to criticize TWRA. Until you come up with reasons why the existing data is flawed or your own data, you will gain no traction with TWRA, IMO.

waterwolf
08-31-2010, 11:01 PM
How is the data political? Additionally you have not provide any credible reason on why the data is flawed. To me it sounds like you don't like the results of TWRA data, so your just looking for any excuse to criticize TWRA. Until you come up with reasons why the existing data is flawed or your own data, you will gain no traction with TWRA, IMO.
A few examples:

Trout do not successfully reproduce in the Clinch: Myth
Pressure had nothing to do with the decline of the Clinch fishery: Myth
Pressure had nothing to do with the impact of spawning success on the South Holston: Myth
Catchable Sized stocked rainbows can't survive in tailwaters: Myth
Holston river below Cherokee gets too warm to support trout year round: Myth
Benthic life in the Clinch is limited because of coldwater temps: Myth
Stripers have no impact on trout fisheries because they feed on shad: Myth
Slot limits have no impact when it comes to improving fisheries: Myth
Cold water temps have a negative impact on annual growth rates in fish: Myth
Didymo destroys aquatic insect life: Myth
80% of the anglers on the Clinch practice Catch and Release: Myth


I could go on and on, but those are just a few of the ones which come to mind quickly. I am sure others could add more, and if I wished to take the time to reread TWRA's mythical tale (study) of the Clinch or South Holston I could find more then the pages here would allow.

Just take two of the above examples: Holston being too warm, and trout not successfully reproducing in the Clinch. Both are stupidly easy to prove, and both are quite the opposite of what the "biologists" claim. If they left the office maybe they would know, or maybe they wouldn't. Of course one of these so called biologists had a difficult time distinguishing a brown trout from a rainbow. Go figure, these are the guys running this circus called "management".

Bfish
08-31-2010, 11:57 PM
A few examples: None of which apply to the current Hiwassee proposal.

For example, fish spawning on the Clinch.... While plenty attempt to build redds, rarely due eggs actually hatch and even fewer recruit to fingerlings. Sure there maybe a couple "natural" fish in the system, but your talking about tenths of a percent which is insignificant from a statistical perspective. So while you say there is natural spawning fish, it doesn't meet the threshold to be considered viable when one looks at the reproduction numbers compared to the total population size.

pineman19
09-01-2010, 07:31 AM
Bfish,

Just curious, do you work for TWRA?

waterwolf
09-01-2010, 07:52 AM
None of which apply to the current Hiwassee proposal.

For example, fish spawning on the Clinch.... While plenty attempt to build redds, rarely due eggs actually hatch and even fewer recruit to fingerlings. Sure there maybe a couple "natural" fish in the system, but your talking about tenths of a percent which is insignificant from a statistical perspective. So while you say there is natural spawning fish, it doesn't meet the threshold to be considered viable when one looks at the reproduction numbers compared to the total population size.


You couldn't be further from the truth in the above statement. Right now, there are thousands upon thousands of fingerling trout in the Clinch, and these are not anything which has ever been stocked. It takes all of 5 minutes and a little awareness to spot them in and around the banks on any day one chooses. It has been like this for as long as I can remember.

It may not meet the threshold for what TWRA considers natural reproduction, but then again acknowledging or noticing naturally reproduced fish would be a good first step.

Has TWRA ever done any research on this, nope, at least none they have discussed or published. Wonder why? They are drawing their conclusions based on their opinions alone, which is dangerous especially seeing who is voicing these opinions.

You forget or may not know, that I worked with TVA biologists on spawning stuff related to the Clinch, and TWRA joined us for the fun, they were wrong at every step along the way, yet were too arrogant to admit it. I have yet to see any of their clowns make any factual statements regarding our cold water resources. They have been wrong and misguided since for decades now, and if it weren't for TVA and luck we wouldn't have the resources we do.

My list is the foundation of why many believe TWRA and TTU have zero clue what they are doing, or they are acting totally on a political agenda. If they have been wrong on every other major trout stream, then why expect them to be right when it comes to this new fangled political stunt?

Bfish
09-01-2010, 09:33 AM
You couldn't be further from the truth in the above statement. Right now, there are thousands upon thousands of fingerling trout in the Clinch, and these are not anything which has ever been stocked. It takes all of 5 minutes and a little awareness to spot them in and around the banks on any day one chooses. Now I know why your upset, it is because of dream visions and your mental delusions. Thousands upon thousands, no. A few hundred maybe.

TVA fish biologist have no role in fishery management, and it is has been my experience that the only time they get involved is when they can spin something to make TVA look good.

Good luck fighting against TWRA, but until you get data that you can hang your hat on, your just talking to the wind. IMO. Also keep in mind all your examples were from Region IV, while the Hiwassee is in Region III.

Adios

David Knapp
09-01-2010, 10:50 AM
Kinda like how the browns weren't successfully spawning in the SoHo for so long? :rolleyes:

Bfish
09-01-2010, 11:10 AM
Kinda like how the browns weren't successfully spawning in the SoHo for so long? :rolleyes: Successfully spawning or making a significant contribution to the population???

In 1997 spawning trout were verified (see Nemeth) with data.

In late 1997 and 1998, Clinch, Watuaga, and Hiwassee were study to see if trout were spawning. Results were Clinch and Watuaga trout attempted to spawn but had little to no success (ie they are not contributing to the population in any significant manner). Hiwassee, of course had no spawning fish. It has been verified again by Banks (Reproductive potential of brown trout in Tennessee tailwaters, 2000).

As new information becomes available TWRA has made changes, however those changes only come either from data driven decisions, or political pressure.

pineman19
09-01-2010, 12:37 PM
Bfish,

Nothing personal, but if post the phrase "data driven" one more time I'll have to stab somebody near me in the eye:rolleyes:

One thing for sure, you seem to have a vested interest in the proposed changes.

Neal

pineman19
09-01-2010, 12:40 PM
Bfish,

Nothing personal, but if you post the phrase "data driven" one more time I'll have to stab somebody near me in the eye:rolleyes:

One thing for sure, you seem to have a vested interest in the proposed changes.

Neal

Bfish
09-01-2010, 01:19 PM
Bfish,

Nothing personal, but if post the phrase "data driven" one more time I'll have to stab somebody near me in the eye:Is wolfman sitting next to you, data driven. Hahaha.


My only interest is seeing that my local river is managed in the best way possible. Also having read all the available research, I think that TWRA makes a very strong case for removing the quality zone designation.

I am torn on the 14" brown size limit. To me it obviously that the size limit is not really protecting the browns (cause all but a precious few, never reach 14" anyway) so there is no justification for it. However, I am still try to hold out hope that one day the Hiwassee can produce decent numbers of quality browns.

The delayed harvest I am against. If it is put and take let it be put and take. I think TWRA left it in there to somewhat placate certain user groups. Additionally the delayed harvest would negatively affect me, as I harvest 4 or 5 limits for the entire year. Almost always my harvested fish come from Jan and Feb. as I like to cold smoke them then (hmm smoked trout dip while watching the Titans). The other 10 months are strictly catch and release for me.

David Knapp
09-01-2010, 02:27 PM
The minimum size limit on browns should be kept in my opinion. If TWRA would stock larger browns I think they would thrive. I know it costs more to raise them in the hatchery if the goal is to stock them larger. However, it seems they would be much more likely to grow enough to reach a point where they are predatory if they are simply stocked larger (where the time needed in the river would thus be shorter). Additionally, the main problem is lack of enforcement. Maybe things are better, but a couple of years ago when I was spending lots of time on the river, I never saw any type of enforcement occurring and was never checked for a license. Lots of people can't tell the difference between browns and 'bows and its very likely that a lot of those little browns they stock are just ending up on stringers. They are ridiculously easy to catch when small and probably just end up leaving the river... :frown:

waterwolf
09-01-2010, 10:47 PM
Now I know why your upset, it is because of dream visions and your mental delusions. Thousands upon thousands, no. A few hundred maybe.

TVA fish biologist have no role in fishery management, and it is has been my experience that the only time they get involved is when they can spin something to make TVA look good.

Good luck fighting against TWRA, but until you get data that you can hang your hat on, your just talking to the wind. IMO. Also keep in mind all your examples were from Region IV, while the Hiwassee is in Region III.

Adios

Well it is pretty obvious when someone stoops to personal attacks they are out of anything remotely logical to add to a discussion, and the discussion is basically done.

Like I said on the young of the year in the Clinch, leave the house/office, and go see for yourself. They aren't difficult to find, just look anywhere along the banks in the slack water, there are hundreds upon thousands of young of the year rainbows. I am sure it is hard to comprehend if you haven't looked, but trust me and others who have seen them for a long period of time now, they are there.

It doesn't matter what Region, it is the same University team, and the same agency driving the train right off the tracks.

Successfully spawning or making a significant contribution to the population???

In 1997 spawning trout were verified (see Nemeth) with data.

In late 1997 and 1998, Clinch, Watuaga, and Hiwassee were study to see if trout were spawning. Results were Clinch and Watuaga trout attempted to spawn but had little to no success (ie they are not contributing to the population in any significant manner). Hiwassee, of course had no spawning fish. It has been verified again by Banks (Reproductive potential of brown trout in Tennessee tailwaters, 2000).

As new information becomes available TWRA has made changes, however those changes only come either from data driven decisions, or political pressure.

I hope you are not touting data that is almost 15 years old, and prior to many many changes on the above mentioned tailwaters. Some natural and some not natural, not to mention a bunch of other variable which could have easily changed.

Amazing.....

waterwolf
09-02-2010, 07:00 AM
One other genius decision recently made by the TWRA coldwater fisheries division I forgot to mention.

This year they decided to annually stock 50,000 rainbows in the Big Pigeon River. This would be fine except for the fact that the water warms each year to greater then 75 degrees by the middle of May, killing every single fish they stock. Tell me the logic in that decision?

If money is such an issue, and properly managing each river for the best possible outcome the goal, then why waste our money and their time stocking a river which really cannot support trout?

This new program was pushed down from the top of the coldwater crew according to the game warden we spoke to. I guess the view from Nashville is clouded over and confusing, thus the reasoning behind two of the wise decisions made this year.

Knothead
09-02-2010, 08:39 AM
TWRA stocks several places in early part of the year to allow people to fish for trout in the colder/cooler months at the beginning of the year. Locations are listed on the TWRA website. They stock the lake at Cumberland Mtn. State Park and the Ocoee River, to mention a couple. Obviously, trout won't survive the summer heat.
BTW, I posted (post #6) the link to comment on the proposed regulations for the Hiwassee. How many have used this link and sent in comments?

waterwolf
09-02-2010, 10:12 AM
TWRA stocks several places in early part of the year to allow people to fish for trout in the colder/cooler months at the beginning of the year. Locations are listed on the TWRA website. They stock the lake at Cumberland Mtn. State Park and the Ocoee River, to mention a couple. Obviously, trout won't survive the summer heat.
BTW, I posted (post #6) the link to comment on the proposed regulations for the Hiwassee. How many have used this link and sent in comments?
I have sent comments, called commissioners, and sent letters.

I understand and know TWRA stocks many streams which are not "trout" water. However, it is usually well published so the people who actually fund TWRA can utilize the resource before they die off. Well in the case of the Big Pigeon they never said a word and just wasted a bunch of money and a bunch of fish which could have been better used in another location.

Explain why on earth it makes sense to use $$$, fish, time, and other resources stocking waterways which cannot support trout and do not get utilized for one reason or another? I for the life of me cannot figure it out.

As an Agency which whines all the time about money issues you would think a little more forethought and common sense would come into play.

I can guarantee the Hiwassee is a much more viable and utilized resource then the litany of sub par streams and rivers which are currently having fish dumped in them and TWRA's "coldwater management tactic" used on them.

Maybe if TWRA spent a little more time and resources managing the waterways which are trout rivers, and are utilized, and less time on the chaff passed off as trout rivers, our entire coldwater fisheries would be better off.

tennswede
09-02-2010, 12:44 PM
TWRA stocks several places in early part of the year to allow people to fish for trout in the colder/cooler months at the beginning of the year. Locations are listed on the TWRA website. They stock the lake at Cumberland Mtn. State Park and the Ocoee River, to mention a couple. Obviously, trout won't survive the summer heat.
BTW, I posted (post #6) the link to comment on the proposed regulations for the Hiwassee. How many have used this link and sent in comments?

I did, previously this year.

tennswede
09-02-2010, 12:47 PM
Waterwolf is exactly right on this, this state dumps fish in many locations where it doens't make any sense. At the same time they say there's no money and they charge license fees double compared to most surrounding states. But of course, the standard answer is: TWRA doesn't get any funding from the legislature. If that's the case, stop wasting trout left and right.

NDuncan
09-02-2010, 01:04 PM
If that's the case, stop wasting trout left and right.

BINGO! If their only source of funding comes through licensing fees, etc and not from the general taxpayer, they have an obligation to the people do fund them to manage that money in the most responsible fashion. I understand the niche that the put-and-take fisheries fill in our state, but in some places, as has been pointed out, aren't a very efficient use of that funding.

Personally, I rather there be a little less put-and-take and a little more enforcement. After all, if this where they get all their funding, aren't poachers and reg breakers essentially stealing from TWRA?

Knothead
09-02-2010, 01:33 PM
aren't poachers and reg breakers essentially stealing from TWRA?
No, they are stealing from you and me. Every trout, deer, turkey, etc. that is taken illegally is diminishing the chances for you and me to take them legally. TWRA doesn't own the game animals in Tennessee. They are owned by the state. A person who "steals" game isn't any different than the person who steals gas, money, or anything else.

Poacher- another word for thief.

Bfish
09-02-2010, 02:02 PM
...Like I said on the young of the year in the Clinch, leave the house/office, and go see for yourself. They aren't difficult to find, just look anywhere along the banks in the slack water, there are hundreds upon thousands of young of the year rainbows. I am sure it is hard to comprehend if you haven't looked, but trust me and others who have seen them for a long period of time now, they are there. Where is the evidence of the thousands upon thousands? Do you have photography's or actual had counts done, or has TVA verified this reproduction through their studies? I have seen no data on this, and I am sure neither has the state. I am not saying the fingerlings are not there, just nobody has proven it to the state yet.

I hope you are not touting data that is almost 15 years old, and prior to many many changes on the above mentioned tailwaters. Some natural and some not natural, not to mention a bunch of other variable which could have easily changed. Best available data, do have any better data? Amazingly you don't. I am curious about the "changes" that you speak of. I am not aware of any.

Besides your issues on the Clinch really have nothing to do with the issues on the Hiwassee, other than your attempts to discredit TWRA.

Bfish
09-02-2010, 02:12 PM
One other genius decision recently made by the TWRA coldwater fisheries division I forgot to mention.

This year they decided to annually stock 50,000 rainbows in the Big Pigeon River. This would be fine except for the fact that the water warms each year to greater then 75 degrees by the middle of May, killing every single fish they stock. Tell me the logic in that decision? Same issue as the Hiwassee, just that the fish die off in late summer/early fall instead of the spring.

I do not know why Pigeon was chosen, but it does have good public access and has lots of tourist in the area. Very well could have been surplus trout from National Fish Hatchery below Dale Hollow. They might have a problem with a raceway and need to get rid of fish fast. TWRA might have thought this freebie of trout would make a good test case. Just suppose, I don't really know.

If money is such an issue, and properly managing each river for the best possible outcome the goal, then why waste our money and their time stocking a river which really cannot support trout?Put and take fisheries makes TWRA money. Streams that are not utilized are dropped.

This new program was pushed down from the top of the coldwater crew according to the game warden we spoke to. I guess the view from Nashville is clouded over and confusing, thus the reasoning behind two of the wise decisions made this year. The idea could have very well been pushed down from above the coldwater crew, say from Commissioner or other political pressure, just saying.

Bfish
09-02-2010, 02:17 PM
BINGO! If their only source of funding comes through licensing fees, etc and not from the general taxpayer, they have an obligation to the people do fund them to manage that money in the most responsible fashion. I understand the niche that the put-and-take fisheries fill in our state, but in some places, as has been pointed out, aren't a very efficient use of that funding. It is pretty simple to compare. If 100 trout are stock and you have 20 fishermen on the stream, they are utilizing the stream in about the same proportion as they utilize the Hiwassee (20k fishermen w/ 100k stocked). I don't know the threshold for dropping streams, but it does happen.

Personally, I rather there be a little less put-and-take and a little more enforcement. After all, if this where they get all their funding, aren't poachers and reg breakers essentially stealing from TWRA? Enforcement is more expensive than stocking a put and take. Ideally there would more enforcement and management.

NDuncan
09-02-2010, 02:22 PM
No, they are stealing from you and me. Every trout, deer, turkey, etc. that is taken illegally is diminishing the chances for you and me to take them legally. TWRA doesn't own the game animals in Tennessee. They are owned by the state. A person who "steals" game isn't any different than the person who steals gas, money, or anything else.

Poacher- another word for thief.


I agree with you totally on that, I was merely suggested that TWRA has a vested financial interest in making sure that people don't hunt without a license, because they would collect on that fee. They have a financial interest in making sure that people don't take game illegally because that may diminish the quality of hunting fishing etc in that area, thus leading to lower participation and lower sales in licenses, thus lower total income for TWRA. Does money from fines for breaking regs go to TWRA or the state? If TWRA gets any portion of that money, they have a financial interest in catching people for that reason as well. I wasn't trying to imply that TWRA owned the fish or game and poaching was stealing physical animals from TWRA, but that it is stealing money from TWRA in the ways I just described (fees, fines, etc).

NDuncan
09-02-2010, 02:28 PM
Enforcement is more expensive than stocking a put and take. Ideally there would more enforcement and management.


And I think the first statement is the problem a lot of people have with the way things are currently done. "Enforcement is expensive, thus poaching is inevitable, so lets just throw more fish out there, knowing they will be poached and hope there are enough left over for the licensed angler to enjoy." I know people on this board have witnessed problems with poachers scooping up tons of fish on the clinch immediately after stocking and calls to TWRA lead to nothing.

It's an attitude that perpetuates the problem.

Bfish
09-02-2010, 03:40 PM
...
It's an attitude that perpetuates the problem.

I tend to disagree, but only because of my discussions with local game wardens (both of which check fisheries often, unlike some GW who can't tell a difference between a brown and rainbow). Both stated to me that it is very rare that they find fish violations. Almost all fishermen abide by the law. These two wardens have some of the highest conviction rates in the state, so I know they are staying busy but it is very rare for them to find over the limit on trout and fishing with no license. I have seen them out there enough to know that they are trying to catch the poachers. This is the Hiwassee area, you local game wardens may be different.

I am not saying it doesn't happen, I just saying locals know that they could be checked at any time. It is rare that during boat ramp talk someone doesn't mention that they were checked recently and finish the chat with they (warden) could be back....

David Knapp
09-02-2010, 05:29 PM
Both stated to me that it is very rare that they find fish violations. Almost all fishermen abide by the law.

Must not be looking where I fish...which is a lot of places...

Bfish
09-02-2010, 05:31 PM
Must not be looking where I fish...which is a lot of places...

Less than 5% of those checked come back with anything was the number told to me.

waterwolf
09-02-2010, 10:27 PM
Last I am going to say on this subject as the rubber meets the road over the next couple of months dealing with TWRA and other people of influence.

TWRA has a long track record of poor decision making, poor management, and general appearance of not understanding how to manage our coldwater resources. They are arrogant, and refuse to listen or study anything which goes against their preconceived notions, or which might go against the grain of their agenda.

I along with the majority of people I know have zero confidence in their ability to make sound management decisions and literally laugh at their idea of management.

This new idea for the Hiwassee stinks from the start, and is a devastating blow to the wonderful rivers we are blessed to have in this state. It is a shame that we don't have a governing body which appreciates them or realizes how pitifully each are managed.

TNBigBore
09-03-2010, 10:36 AM
I will not start mudslinging here as waterwolf and I have disagreed on similar topics before. I do respect waterwolf's firsthand knowledge of the Clinch especially. I will simply say that I know all of the coldwater fisheries crew very well and worked with them for several years. I have absolute confidence in their ability to responsibly manage our coldwater fisheries. They are making decision based on the best science available at the time and many hours spent on the water every season. They make mistakes and perhaps could use some help with the people skills at times, but are competent professionals with vast knowledge of the subject.

Tailwater trout fisheries change over the years based more on weather patterns and water release than anything else. I do think regulations could have some impact on the Hiwassee, but the regs are really for the fishermen there, not the fish. They can relieve the pressure on certain areas and provide a more desirable experience depending on what you are looking for. However, they do not really make a difference when it comes to bigger fish. If you have several favorable weather years in a row then the Hiwassee can be an outstanding fishery and can produce decent numbers of nice fish. If this is coupled with a larger than normal winter shad kill, this can help the size of the fish as well. This does not change the fact that the Hiwassee is fed by a reservoir that draws from a relatively small supply of cold water and draws it from too high up in the water column. The food base is adequate, but is not in the same ballpark as the Clinch and South Holston. The Hiwassee will always have some nice brown trout and a few nice rainbows, but so does the Tellico. No matter how it is managed, it will never be a trophy river like the Clinch, South Holston or even the Watauga. The margin for error is just too small on the Hi. Any number of unfavorable weather/climatic events can turn the Hi into a marginal trout fishery.

Please understand that I love fishing the Hiwassee and have been doing so since the early 1980s. I just try to accept it for what it is: a beautiful river that can produce excellent numbers of fish in good years and the occasional nice fish, and a marginal fishery in other years.

tennswede
09-03-2010, 12:57 PM
I agree withe everything you say TNBigbore, however, I'm for keeping the zone for peace and serenity. I am adamant against turning it in to another "Tellico Zoo". We already have enough of that. So my gripe is not so much that we don't have all these huge fish in the HI. We do have enough of them to make it a real possibility to catch one now and then. I just don't understand why we can't keep the Quality Zone the way it is. Why do we always have to change things. They say change is for the better, I think not all the time. I don't go down to the Hiwassee with the aim for lunkers. I go down there for the peace and quiet. With DH, adios to that.

waterwolf
09-03-2010, 09:48 PM
I agree withe everything you say TNBigbore, however, I'm for keeping the zone for peace and serenity. I am adamant against turning it in to another "Tellico Zoo". We already have enough of that. So my gripe is not so much that we don't have all these huge fish in the HI. We do have enough of them to make it a real possibility to catch one now and then. I just don't understand why we can't keep the Quality Zone the way it is. Why do we always have to change things. They say change is for the better, I think not all the time. I don't go down to the Hiwassee with the aim for lunkers. I go down there for the peace and quiet. With DH, adios to that.
I have not heard any rumblings or people complaining about it, so there is no grass roots movement to remove the regs. Hence the reason I feel this is totally a political move to support some individual close to TWRA and their agenda.

If no one is complaining, and it is not detrimental to the resource then it should remain in place.

Shaggy
09-06-2010, 09:17 PM
Tennswede has stated my exact feelings on this matter as well. I love the Hiwassee, caught my first trout there as well as my first trout on a flyrod! The quality zone is an extremely beautiful and serene place. I have caught very few trout there (mostly sunfish and smallmouth) with the exception of Big Bend and the stairsteps. However, if it turns into a Tellico type river, then it will be spoiled. I also love the Tellico area but only fish the Tellico river in the winter focusing on the North and Bald in the summer. I would hate to see this river go in that direction!

Knothead
09-07-2010, 05:03 AM
We have 8 pages of posts on this thread but has anyone emailed TWRA and expressed their opinion there?:confused:

waterwolf
09-07-2010, 07:19 AM
We have 8 pages of posts on this thread but has anyone emailed TWRA and expressed their opinion there?:confused:
I have certainly voiced my opinions.

Paddlefish
09-07-2010, 09:11 AM
A lot of good posts and opinions on this thread. I've enjoyed reading them. I went down and took some water temps yesterday morning. 411 bridge was 64 deg. Big Bend was 64 deg. Fox's Cabin was 65 deg. The old river bed inflow was 67 deg. It is pretty much a sure thing , that this year will be a good year for the trout on the Hiwassee. Last year also was cooler than it has been in the last 17 or 18 yrs. This year has been the hottest ever recorded since records have been kept and we are behind in rainfall by 9 inches in the Chattanooga area. Seems like the water temps should reflect these harsh conditions, but they don't. My point is that depending on how the water is regulated by TVA the Hiwassee can be as cool as it was in the 60's 70's and 80's. If you are interested in the future of the Hiwassee then you should visit Hiwassee.org. There is a lot of real interesting info there about the problems that we have been facing on the Hiwassee. Also, a lot of folks have been catching some 12 to 15 inch fish this year. Next year should be even better since we had a good year with our water temps, but it will all be lost if the water gets hot next year. If we have cool water in this hot drought year we can have it every year. Any set of regulations that are put in place can't help our river, only cool water can. The habitat has always been there. That is why the Hiwassee was listed as one of the 100 best trout rivers in the US back in the 80's. The river that most of us know today is only a shadow of what it was in the past. Everybody visit Hiwassee.org.

waterwolf
09-07-2010, 09:37 AM
It will be even more of a shadow if Bfish and those who agree with him get their way this fall.

We need to really bring the heat and force TWRA to rethink this bonehead decision.

Bfish
09-07-2010, 10:18 AM
Waterwolf, you could not leave it alone could you?
You can keep experimenting (and wasting money) on trying to make it something that it can't be. Or you could face the reality that it is a marginal fishery and allow the state to manage it as such.

waterwolf
09-07-2010, 10:37 AM
Waterwolf, you could not leave it alone could you?
You can keep experimenting (and wasting money) on trying to make it something that it can't be. Or you could face the reality that it is a marginal fishery and allow the state to manage it as such.
:biggrin: Of course not!!:biggrin:

The biggest waste of money is paying Jim Habera, Bart Carter, and the rest of the coldwater team to pose as biologists. Or to pay TTU to do more worthless and bogus studies.

Knothead
09-07-2010, 12:23 PM
The website Paddlefish is referring to is www.hiwassee.net (http://www.hiwassee.net), which is the website of the Hiwassee Chapter of Trout Unlimited.

Bfish
09-07-2010, 01:54 PM
The website Paddlefish is referring to is www.hiwassee.net (http://www.hiwassee.net), which is the website of the Hiwassee Chapter of Trout Unlimited.

Actually I think he meant this website:

http://hiwasseeriver.org/

but the one you listed is a good one.

Bfish
09-07-2010, 01:57 PM
The biggest waste of money is paying Jim Habera, Bart Carter,... They are not even involved with anything relating to the Hiwassee, as they are in a different region. Until you bring verifiable data to the table, you're just blowing hot air.

David Knapp
09-07-2010, 02:13 PM
We have 8 pages of posts on this thread but has anyone emailed TWRA and expressed their opinion there?:confused:

Yes!!! :cool:

waterwolf
09-07-2010, 03:00 PM
They are not even involved with anything relating to the Hiwassee, as they are in a different region. Until you bring verifiable data to the table, you're just blowing hot air.
The only people blowing hot air is TWRA and their lack of understanding as to how to manage anything related to trout.

It is astonishing these clowns are considered biologists, I guess anyone can sleep through a few classes and earn a degree.

Paddlefish
09-07-2010, 06:47 PM
Thanks Bfish. I did mean www.hiwasseeriver.org (http://www.hiwasseeriver.org). My bad

Knothead
09-07-2010, 07:42 PM
OK, got it! Not aware of the .org website. Thanks.

tennswede
10-28-2010, 07:27 PM
Alright folks, the sad news are here. The Zoo can officially be opened. The new regs were voted on today. Oh well we tried.

mstone
10-28-2010, 10:20 PM
Wonder when we will hear the inevitable results ? I can't really believe that someone thought that this could be a good idea.