Home QLinks New Posts Members User CP Calendar FAQ

Go Back   Little River Outfitters Forum > Fly Fishing Board > Fisheries Management & Biology

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-26-2010, 02:12 PM
2weightfavorite 2weightfavorite is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: maryville
Posts: 378
Send a message via AIM to 2weightfavorite
Default killing rainbows..

So I was wondering today as I drove up the road at tremont... They used chemicals to kill the rainbows that werent shocked and moved or caught in the catch out up at lynn camp, but how far down from the sascades did that chemical kill the fish?

Now for any of who say that the stream below the falls wasn't affected I have to say you are wrong.. And Im not debating the restocking of lynn camp. However, if there wasn't non diluted killing chemical just above the cascades then rainbows would have been left to reproduce... so just above the falls there had to have been adequate chemical to kill the fish, now the cascades aren't that big, so the chances of the chemical becoming harmless from the top of them to the bottom of them is slim to none... So, how far down the middle prong did we lose trout? Im sure it wasn't an extremely long distance, but Id love to know..

Have any of you fished just below the cascades since the kill?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 06-26-2010, 04:41 PM
David Knapp's Avatar
David Knapp David Knapp is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Crossville, TN
Posts: 2,178
Default

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe a buffer was put in the water below the cascades when the poison arrived from upstream. The buffer countered the poison making it harmless to anything further downstream...Shouldn't have lost many if any fish below there...
__________________
"Then He said to them, 'Follow Me, and I will make you fishers of men.'" Matthew 4:19

http://thetroutzone.blogspot.com
http://www.troutzoneanglers.com
contact: TroutZoneAnglers at gmail dot com
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 06-26-2010, 08:24 PM
2weightfavorite 2weightfavorite is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: maryville
Posts: 378
Send a message via AIM to 2weightfavorite
Default

wow, that would be awsome! I had not heard that, but it sure makes good sense...just add something to neutralize thee killing agent in the waters that were not intended to be affected. I hope that was the case!
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 06-26-2010, 08:49 PM
GrouseMan77's Avatar
GrouseMan77 GrouseMan77 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Andersonville, TN
Posts: 681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plateau Angler View Post
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe a buffer was put in the water below the cascades when the poison arrived from upstream. The buffer countered the poison making it harmless to anything further downstream...Shouldn't have lost many if any fish below there...
PA, there was a buffer at the base of the falls.
__________________
Jason

jasonkelkins at yahoo dot com
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 06-27-2010, 11:34 PM
Crockett Crockett is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Maryville, TN
Posts: 700
Default

If the cascades we are talking about here is the big one about a quarter mile up the middle prong trail then no one could fish below it since that water all the way down to where the trail starts is closed I think right?
__________________
Adam Beal

http://gosmokies.knoxnews.com/profil...=2hvzainc23h5b

Hey Jack (JAB)...
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 06-28-2010, 07:57 AM
waterwolf waterwolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,186
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plateau Angler View Post
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe a buffer was put in the water below the cascades when the poison arrived from upstream. The buffer countered the poison making it harmless to anything further downstream...Shouldn't have lost many if any fish below there...
I think this is right. I know they use a blocker with rotanone (sp?), but not sure if they used that chemical or something else on this project.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 06-28-2010, 04:40 PM
Jim Casada Jim Casada is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rock Hill, SC
Posts: 992
Default

waterwolf--The chemical is antimycin, I believe. I'm not a scientist but do have to wonder if it is possible to render harmless, completely and irrevocably, something which is deadly above a waterfall after it drops down below the cascade.
I very much want specks to return, but I've always had some (make that considerable) reservations about killing other wild fish to restore them.
What I find really interesting, and no one seems to have a real explanation, is that mountain trout have, on their own and in my lifetime, expanded their range appreciably in some streams such as Straight Fork and Beech Flats Prong. This expansion has had nothing to do with management by man, although you have to figure that the best qualified of all fisheries biologists, nature, has figured in the equation in a significant way.
Jim Casada
www.jimcasadaoutdoors.com
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 07-01-2010, 05:56 PM
duckypaddler's Avatar
duckypaddler duckypaddler is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Knoxville, Tennessee
Posts: 1,157
Smile We really need more math and science in opur schools

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Casada View Post
The chemical is antimycin, I believe. I'm not a scientist but do have to wonder if it is possible to render harmless, completely and irrevocably, something which is deadly above a waterfall after it drops down below the cascade.
Jim Casada
www.jimcasadaoutdoors.com
That chemistry is hard to explain to the mountain folk

http://www.nps.gov/grsm/naturescienc...ntimycin05.pdf

Bottom line is if you see the color change - it's neutralized

While I have seen many people complain about the use, I have never read anything credible (able to pass peer review) to convince me otherwise, other than the fact that in the past much worse things were used that killed the insects, etc
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 07-01-2010, 09:20 PM
Jim Casada Jim Casada is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rock Hill, SC
Posts: 992
Default

duckypaddler--Your post reads (at least to this one example of mountain folk) as if antimycin doesn't kill insects. It is my understanding that it pretty well wipes out everything in a stream (crayfish, spring lizards, as we mountain folks call salamanders, Devil's knitting needles, a.k.a. know as snake feeders, and insects in general. Is that a misconception? Also, I mentioned some of the inhabitants of mountain streams by their colloquial names just to make a point that we mountain folk, say what you will about our lack of scientific understanding, have a real knack for using descriptive terms. Even the slowest of woods colts would know that (and if you know what a woods colt is I'll give you full marks, betting, as I mention the term, that there are those of lurk in these precincts who will know).
Jim Casada
www.jimcasadaoutdoors.com
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-28-2010, 07:03 PM
GrouseMan77's Avatar
GrouseMan77 GrouseMan77 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Andersonville, TN
Posts: 681
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by waterwolf View Post
I think this is right. I know they use a blocker with rotanone (sp?), but not sure if they used that chemical or something else on this project.
I couldn't think of the name the other day but it was Rotenone.
__________________
Jason

jasonkelkins at yahoo dot com
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:22 PM.



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.