Home Register Today's 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 offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Crossville, TN
Posts: 2,175
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 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
  #9  
Old 06-28-2010, 07:32 PM
Jim Casada Jim Casada is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Rock Hill, SC
Posts: 992
Default

Jason--I check and the chemical they used to kill specks was antimycin. Apparently it is preferable to rotenone, although given the fact it kills everything down to microinvertebrates I'm not sure why. However, you are right in that rotenone was once the poisons of choice. It was what was used when they first started trying to re-establish specks.
One such usage took place in Indian Creek decades ago and was an abysmal failure. There were others, and I think a combination of factors led to abandoning use of rotenone--ineffectiveness, unwelcome side effects, difficulty in dosage control, etc. Presumably antimycin answered some of these problems, and there's no doubt that recent speck restoration efforts show more signs of success than early ones.
For me though, the jury's still out. There's been a great deal of money and wonderful volunteer effort go into this program over the years, but I'm far too much of a mountain boy not to have a healthy (and large) dose of skepticism. As I think I say somewhere in my book on the Park, I'll lead the cheering if the effort proves a success, but right now I'm waiting.
What I would really love to see, and if it's available I'm unaware of it, is overall information on the modern (antimycin) restoration program and where it stands. Does anyone know where matters stand on Bear Creek, for example.
The whole thing with bucket biology brings dismay, but it also offers an unfortunate lesson in how fragile this whole program may be. Rainbows have a real penchant to "take holt," to use the mountain vernacular, and I actually fear that all the publicity about this, while it may scare off the perpretrator(s), could at the same time encourage others.
Like it or not, there's a lingering and strong dislike of anything and everything connected with the Park in folks on both sides of the mountain. I've seen it all my life, argued with some people who hate the Park (mainly the "Build the Road" crowd) in person and in print until I was blue in the face, and eventually came to recognize the fact that we are still two or three generations away from the sense of loss folks experienced going away.
Incidentally, I can understand that sense of loss. Cataloochee and Cades Cove were pieces of paradise, and in the former there was literally wailing and gnashing of teeth when folks were told (by their preacher) they would have to leave. Think of it this way--if the govt. seized your land by eminent domain and paid far less than you thought it was worth, threatening all the while things would be even worse if you didn't accept their offer, wouldn't you be bitter?
That bitterness lingers, and unfortunately it sometimes finds outlets in destructive acts such as the Lynn Camp Prong "stocking."
Jim Casada
www.jimcasadaoutdoors.com
P. S. This is probably more than anyone wanted to hear on this whole matter, but obviously the overriding issue and social situation are ones which interest me keenly. I might add that even given my sympathy to the great loss, some folks in Swain County consider me the spawn of the Devil because I wrote strong words arguing against the Road to Nowhere.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 06-28-2010, 08:17 PM
mora521 mora521 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: 30min from the "Y"
Posts: 109
Default

Potassium permanganate was the chemical used to nuetralize the antimycin,it is also used by water companies to treat certain types of well water to make it more palatable.It leaves a purple stain on clothing and skin that is hard to remove.
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 04:19 AM.



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