Home Register Today's Posts Members User CP Calendar FAQ

Go Back   Little River Outfitters Forum > Fly Fishing Board > Tennessee Trout Streams and Tailwaters

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 02-13-2009, 12:09 PM
MadisonBoats's Avatar
MadisonBoats MadisonBoats is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Norris, TN
Posts: 1,884
Post

Yeah, the fat stripers too...

I think that was a TN Tech Grad Student's Project gone horrible wrong...

I remember all the signs along Hwy 61 that said 'Welcome to Norris Lake - The Dead Lake' - or something like that...
__________________
“Every human has four endowments- self awareness, conscience, independent will, & creative imagination.
These give us the ultimate human freedom... The
power
to choose, to respond, to change.”


Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 02-14-2009, 10:17 PM
highpockets's Avatar
highpockets highpockets is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Fayetteville TN
Posts: 218
Default

Funny you should say something about road signs. I went to Ferris Creek yesterday and in the water under the bridge was over 10 street signs that had been broken off of their poles. Walker creek road, Corders cross roads, Rush road (which I have, Rush fan) all lying in the water. I got all of the ones that I could fish out (pun intended) and threw them away.
__________________
"even Jesus had a 12 man recon team"
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 06-11-2009, 10:37 PM
RuningWolf's Avatar
RuningWolf RuningWolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 147
Default Re

Numerous reports by Bettoli discuss that high flows result in deceased populations of certain size ranges of fish. There is minimum holding structure for smaller fish in the Clinch River (per Betolli) where there is not competition; the ability to feed becomes a problem, the fact that they become more of a food source, etc. No one knows for sure what happens to this size range of fish. This is the fish that grows into the 14-20+ in fish without which the fishery as far as size goes looses that part of the population that becomes next years 12-16 in fish and the subsequent years 16-20+ in fish.


As with most large tailwaters, discharge patterns in the Caney Fork and Clinch Rivers increased daily by as much as 80-fold, sometimes within a few hours. Habitat that provides a hydraulic refuge in these two systems was limited (particularly in the Caney Fork River) and stocking large numbers of trout exacerbates the problem.


There is also a problem with the inverse relationship between survival and stocking rates has been observed

Schools of shad in the clinch!!!! My my my I know of no one who has seen them.

Rock bass eat how much of their weight each day? Betolli only found a few however the Rock Bass fishermen sure love the Clinch when the river is up

Last edited by RuningWolf; 06-11-2009 at 11:46 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-11-2009, 10:44 PM
waterwolf waterwolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,202
Default

Betolli's Clinch study had so many errors and flaws there is no where to even begin dissecting the rag.

My favorite was pressure had nothing to do with the survival rates of fish, of course proven wrong by TWRA and thus the reason we now have a slot limit, many years after Betolli left the scene.

Stripers have an impact, no question. There is no large shad population in the Clinch to sustain their growth, and having zipped open 50 or so in the last couple of years, I assure you that everything in them was a salmonid of some description. Not a single shad to be found.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 06-12-2009, 12:13 AM
RuningWolf's Avatar
RuningWolf RuningWolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 147
Default re.

TWRA said the excessive high flows impacted the fishery (numbers of fish) per their biologist prior to implantation of the slot limit. Their biologist have also publically stated that they can control what comes out by controlling what goes in. Study their stocking regimes starting about 1985 forward by size, numbers, TWRA’s shocking data and then compare what happens in years after high flows until now. Thee is some interesting correlations to flow and survivability.

The slot limit was because a bunch of people whined that they could not catch fish while complaining that the bait fishermen where catching them by the boat loads, all the while posting photo’s of their catches. That is in the archives here if you care to go back in read it

So document for us with reliable references/studies where Dr. Betolli was wrong if you would there Dr. Waterwolf

As a note No one has ever said slots will not produce higher numbers of bigger fish.

Let me also add that most of the Clinch receives minimal fishing pressure. In shocking samplers for those areas the data has shown essentially the same percentage changes by both numbers and size as the heavily fished areas every year that the data is available for, except for the area going up stream ~ 3 miles above 61 bridge. That change has occurred simultaneously with the new flow release schedule by TVA which has caused higher water levels in that area for longer periods of time. Rock bass is the logical cause for the increased decline in numbers there
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 06-12-2009, 08:01 AM
waterwolf waterwolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RuningWolf View Post
TWRA said the excessive high flows impacted the fishery (numbers of fish) per their biologist prior to implantation of the slot limit. Their biologist have also publically stated that they can control what comes out by controlling what goes in. Study their stocking regimes starting about 1985 forward by size, numbers, TWRA’s shocking data and then compare what happens in years after high flows until now. Thee is some interesting correlations to flow and survivability.
TWRA did not say anything of the sort in relation to the slot limit. I was at the meetings, and they said it was due to fishing pressure. High flows have only one time shown a negative impact on the fishery, and there has been numerous times over the last decade plus of high flows, yet only once did it seem to effect the fish population and that was a result of the timing rather then the water heigth. I was on the boat for many of those shocking samples so I know what was turned up, where, and when.

1994-1995 saw the highest flows on record in the last years, same years that the road to Tremont got washed out. The fishing following the flows was as good as it has ever been on the Clinch, and the shocking data backed that up as well. I know I was on the shocking crew and touched most of the fish which were recorded. Of course, the quality zone was still having an impact on the fishery, but naturally according to you that had no imapct.

Then in the late 90's we had another round of massive water flows, this one, once again had no negative impact.

The one in ~2004 had little impact as the year following showed super high catch rates and super high fish populations. And it was a massive flood event which lasted for a month or more with flows higher then anything we had seen.

This year, we saw again ultra high water on the Clinch for a period of time, and the fish are not only there, but thriving the likes of which I haven't seen since the mid 90's. The benthics are higher this year then in anyones recent memory, and the overall health of the river is fantastic.

Your theory does not hold water, Betolli claimed the same thing and was wrong as well. If high flows were the cause then slots would have been implemented long ago, but that of course is not the case. Also they would be temporary and not permanent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RuningWolf View Post
The slot limit was because a bunch of people whined that they could not catch fish while complaining that the bait fishermen where catching them by the boat loads, all the while posting photo’s of their catches. That is in the archives here if you care to go back in read it
This statement is laughable, TWRA came up with the slot all on their own, there was no pressure from anyone. It surprised all of us when they announced the proposal. No one whined, and I assure you that myself or anyone I fish with have no trouble catching fish on the Clinch.

The bait fishing crew has a serious impact on the resource, there is no question. And that impact is much greater on years with low flows versus high flow years. Hence the downfall of the Clinch benthic and fish population wise, came in 2002-2003 when abnormally low flows were the norm. Pressure was out of hand and silt choked out the weed beds. The years following led to the slot being implemented. The fish are not being beemed up on a space ship, and the gut piles at the ramps each day explain where they go.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RuningWolf View Post
Let me also add that most of the Clinch receives minimal fishing pressure. In shocking samplers for those areas the data has shown essentially the same percentage changes by both numbers and size as the heavily fished areas every year that the data is available for, except for the area going up stream ~ 3 miles above 61 bridge. That change has occurred simultaneously with the new flow release schedule by TVA which has caused higher water levels in that area for longer periods of time. Rock bass is the logical cause for the increased decline in numbers there
There is no where on the Clinch that is not heavily fished. Sure there are areas which are fished more then others, however even the furthest points from public access have an incredible number of people utilizing the resource. The only predator taking huge numbers of trout out of the Clinch is humans, either through consumption or poor handling. Stripers eat some and Big browns eat a ton as well, however their impact is nothing compared to the hordes which descend daily on the river with rod in hand.

The higher flows at 61 are because of the weir dam, the new flows instituted by TVA are for recreation purposes only, they have nothing to do with minimum flows down stream. If that were the case then why has the water been off in recent weeks for 12 hours at a time, yet 61 bridge still has plenty of water even that long after the generators have been shut down?

You want specific examples? How about the fact I was there along with others who use this forum. I have been on the shocking crews, myself and a TVA employee are the ones who started the fingerling program in the river which was handed over to TWRA, along with a handful of other members of this forum we witnessed and watched as the fishing went up and then crashed down and how natural events and human intrusion effected the river.

I don't need a biased and flawed study to reference, I was there.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 06-12-2009, 08:14 AM
waterwolf waterwolf is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,202
Default

By all accounts, trout fishing on the Clinch River was excellent in 2005. The catch rate (fish perhour) was very high and the numbers of fish caught and harvested per trip were among thehighest observed in any Tennessee tailwater. These observations of good fishing are alsonoteworthy given that electrofishing sampling in February 2005.

Allright running wolf, the above quote should quell your theories and pontifications regarding water and fishing pressure. 2004 saw one of the longest periods of high flows ever on the Clinch. Almost a month with sluice or flood gates open.
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 02:30 AM.



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