Oklahoma fly fishing...

[egildone]

Looks like Oklahoma Wildlife Department is developing a first rate Trout
fishery in Oklahoma.

http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/streamrest.htm

What do you think?

let the fulmination begin!

Ed

[Conan The Librarian]

egildone wrote:

> Looks like Oklahoma Wildlife Department is developing a first rate Trout
> fishery in Oklahoma.
>
> http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/streamrest.htm
>
> What do you think?

I think it looks great. But with the first serious floods or
droughts, I expect it will be back to square one.

They've been trying for years to establish a year-round trout
fishery not far from here on the Guadalupe River below Canyon Dam. It's
a drawdown dam and so the water is normally cold-enough to support trout
in a stretch of river directly below the dam. This area originally was
stocked as part of the normal put-and-take trout fishing program, and
then folks started catching a few fish that seemed to be
"over-summering".

The local branch of TU negotiated with the river authority to
maintain a summertime release of at least 150 CFS to help the trout
survive the hot weather. They also stocked adult browns and rainbows
in that area.

Everything looked good until the most recent "100 year flood", when
the water came *over* the dam and turned the lake over, causing the
temps to rise too high and kill a majority of the fish (plus they figure
the flooding had an effect on fish mortality by itself). It also cut
new channels in the river and basically flushed the bottom (not a bad
thing, but imagine what an event like that would do to the artificial
environment in the OK river).

Of course, since then we've had two years of severe drought, so the
river flow has been curtailed, and folks who have a stake in this are
just hoping and praying that the holdover fish are hunkered down in a
deep hole somewhere and have survived.

And of course there was the recent instance where some of the trout
fisher guys were trying to get a tournament together to catch striped
bass below the dam because the nasty old things were eating their
precious trout.

So I've seen what can happen when they try to establish a coldwater
fishery where none existed before, and I'm not very optimistic.


Chuck Vance (well, he asked, didn't he?)

[egildone]

Conan The Librarian wrote:
> egildone wrote:
>
>> Looks like Oklahoma Wildlife Department is developing a first rate
>> Trout fishery in Oklahoma.
>>
>> http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/streamrest.htm
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> I think it looks great. But with the first serious floods or
> droughts, I expect it will be back to square one.
>
> They've been trying for years to establish a year-round trout fishery
> not far from here on the Guadalupe River below Canyon Dam. It's a
> drawdown dam and so the water is normally cold-enough to support trout
> in a stretch of river directly below the dam. This area originally was
> stocked as part of the normal put-and-take trout fishing program, and
> then folks started catching a few fish that seemed to be "over-summering".
>
> The local branch of TU negotiated with the river authority to
> maintain a summertime release of at least 150 CFS to help the trout
> survive the hot weather. They also stocked adult browns and rainbows
> in that area.
>
> Everything looked good until the most recent "100 year flood", when
> the water came *over* the dam and turned the lake over, causing the
> temps to rise too high and kill a majority of the fish (plus they figure
> the flooding had an effect on fish mortality by itself). It also cut
> new channels in the river and basically flushed the bottom (not a bad
> thing, but imagine what an event like that would do to the artificial
> environment in the OK river).
>
> Of course, since then we've had two years of severe drought, so the
> river flow has been curtailed, and folks who have a stake in this are
> just hoping and praying that the holdover fish are hunkered down in a
> deep hole somewhere and have survived.
>
> And of course there was the recent instance where some of the trout
> fisher guys were trying to get a tournament together to catch striped
> bass below the dam because the nasty old things were eating their
> precious trout.
>
> So I've seen what can happen when they try to establish a coldwater
> fishery where none existed before, and I'm not very optimistic.
>
>
> Chuck Vance (well, he asked, didn't he?)

Chuck,

In 2005, Jason Archie caught a 17 lb. 33 in. state record Brown Trout in
that river that they believe was from the first stocking in 1989. Of
course, we haven't had a 100 year flood since then either.

We also have another river where we have year around trout fishing, the
lower Illinois. Some fishermen catch the trout and use them for bait to
catch 30 in. plus Stripers that come up from the Arkansas river.

Ed

[Conan The Librarian]

egildone wrote:

> In 2005, Jason Archie caught a 17 lb. 33 in. state record Brown Trout in
> that river that they believe was from the first stocking in 1989. Of
> course, we haven't had a 100 year flood since then either.

It may be different there, but we've had at least a couple of "100
year floods" in the last 10 years. :-}

> We also have another river where we have year around trout fishing, the
> lower Illinois. Some fishermen catch the trout and use them for bait to
> catch 30 in. plus Stripers that come up from the Arkansas river.

One of our part-time ROFFians refers to the stocked trout in a lake
near where he lives as "striper candy".


Chuck Vance (where is Big Dale, anyway?)

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:04:10 -0600, egildone
> wrote:

>Looks like Oklahoma Wildlife Department is developing a first rate Trout
>fishery in Oklahoma.

Yeah, maybe next, they'll start a marlin fishery in Optima...little
bitty marlin that can swim in a few inches of water...
>
>http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/streamrest.htm
>
>What do you think?

I think if God/Mother Nature had thought a "first-class trout fishery"
in Oklahoma was a good idea, he/she would have placed one there...and I
also think that every time man attempts to put fish where they don't
belong, especially for his own amusement, it winds up as ****ed up as
Hogan's goat.

Hey, you asked,
R

[[email protected]]

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:44:49 -0600, Conan The Librarian
> wrote:

>egildone wrote:
>
>> Looks like Oklahoma Wildlife Department is developing a first rate Trout
>> fishery in Oklahoma.
>>
>> http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/streamrest.htm
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> I think it looks great. But with the first serious floods or
>droughts, I expect it will be back to square one.
>
> They've been trying for years to establish a year-round trout
>fishery not far from here on the Guadalupe River below Canyon Dam. It's
>a drawdown dam and so the water is normally cold-enough to support trout
>in a stretch of river directly below the dam. This area originally was
>stocked as part of the normal put-and-take trout fishing program, and
>then folks started catching a few fish that seemed to be
>"over-summering".
>
> The local branch of TU

If it isn't now, it was once the largest TU chapter - a big bunch of
yuppie dip****s - who thought trout in the Guadalupe was a great idea.

>negotiated with the river authority to
>maintain a summertime release of at least 150 CFS to help the trout
>survive the hot weather. They also stocked adult browns and rainbows
> in that area.
>
> Everything looked good until the most recent "100 year flood", when
>the water came *over* the dam and turned the lake over, causing the
>temps to rise too high and kill a majority of the fish (plus they figure
>the flooding had an effect on fish mortality by itself). It also cut
>new channels in the river and basically flushed the bottom (not a bad
>thing, but imagine what an event like that would do to the artificial
>environment in the OK river).

> Of course, since then we've had two years of severe drought, so the
>river flow has been curtailed, and folks who have a stake in this are
>just hoping and praying that the holdover fish are hunkered down in a
>deep hole somewhere and have survived.
>
> And of course there was the recent instance where some of the trout
>fisher guys were trying to get a tournament together to catch striped
>bass below the dam because the nasty old things were eating their
>precious trout.
>
> So I've seen what can happen when they try to establish a coldwater
>fishery where none existed before, and I'm not very optimistic.
>
>
> Chuck Vance (well, he asked, didn't he?)

Yeah, he did...it's a bad idea in Texas, and it's a bad idea in
Oklahoma. There's plenty of great native fishing, as well as stocking
of appropriate species, and yet, a relative few yuppie idiots who by-God
think that they know what's best have done what yuppies generally do:
put their own selfish interests ahead of what's right.

TC,
R
....and if you weren't aware, they've tried stocking up by PK, too - same
mess, different river and dam...

[egildone]

wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:44:49 -0600, Conan The Librarian
> > wrote:
>
>> egildone wrote:
>>
>>> Looks like Oklahoma Wildlife Department is developing a first rate Trout
>>> fishery in Oklahoma.
>>>
>>> http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/streamrest.htm
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>> I think it looks great. But with the first serious floods or
>> droughts, I expect it will be back to square one.
>>
>> They've been trying for years to establish a year-round trout
>> fishery not far from here on the Guadalupe River below Canyon Dam. It's
>> a drawdown dam and so the water is normally cold-enough to support trout
>> in a stretch of river directly below the dam. This area originally was
>> stocked as part of the normal put-and-take trout fishing program, and
>> then folks started catching a few fish that seemed to be
>> "over-summering".
>>
>> The local branch of TU
>
> If it isn't now, it was once the largest TU chapter - a big bunch of
> yuppie dip****s - who thought trout in the Guadalupe was a great idea.
>
>> negotiated with the river authority to
>> maintain a summertime release of at least 150 CFS to help the trout
>> survive the hot weather. They also stocked adult browns and rainbows
>> in that area.
>>
>> Everything looked good until the most recent "100 year flood", when
>> the water came *over* the dam and turned the lake over, causing the
>> temps to rise too high and kill a majority of the fish (plus they figure
>> the flooding had an effect on fish mortality by itself). It also cut
>> new channels in the river and basically flushed the bottom (not a bad
>> thing, but imagine what an event like that would do to the artificial
>> environment in the OK river).
>
>> Of course, since then we've had two years of severe drought, so the
>> river flow has been curtailed, and folks who have a stake in this are
>> just hoping and praying that the holdover fish are hunkered down in a
>> deep hole somewhere and have survived.
>>
>> And of course there was the recent instance where some of the trout
>> fisher guys were trying to get a tournament together to catch striped
>> bass below the dam because the nasty old things were eating their
>> precious trout.
>>
>> So I've seen what can happen when they try to establish a coldwater
>> fishery where none existed before, and I'm not very optimistic.
>>
>>
>> Chuck Vance (well, he asked, didn't he?)
>
> Yeah, he did...it's a bad idea in Texas, and it's a bad idea in
> Oklahoma. There's plenty of great native fishing, as well as stocking
> of appropriate species, and yet, a relative few yuppie idiots who by-God
> think that they know what's best have done what yuppies generally do:
> put their own selfish interests ahead of what's right.
>
> TC,
> R
> ...and if you weren't aware, they've tried stocking up by PK, too - same
> mess, different river and dam...

It seems to have worked out OK at Lake Taneycomo near Branson, Mo..
That one was developed in 1958 before yuppies existed. Was it a bad idea
there also?

Take a look.

http://www.branson.com/lake-taneycomo.html

[Ken Fortenberry]

egildone wrote:
> <snip>
> It seems to have worked out OK at Lake Taneycomo near Branson, Mo.. That
> one was developed in 1958 before yuppies existed. Was it a bad idea
> there also?

Nothing there "worked out OK". That whole phoney-baloney, so-called
"trout" fishery below the Table Rock Dam is a friggin' travesty and
a goddamned shame. Have you ever been there ? It's a joke. That dam
ruined one of the best smallmouth streams in the world to create
electricity for air conditioners in Oklahoma City. There ain't one
damn thing about that stream that's "worked out OK". I've fished
there, ran from the sirens and dodged the jon boats. It's a zoo,
not a trout fishery.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[[email protected]]

On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 21:36:40 -0600, egildone
> wrote:


>It seems to have worked out OK at Lake Taneycomo near Branson, Mo..

No, it hasn't.

>That one was developed in 1958.....before yuppies existed.

Yes, it was...no, it wasn't.

>Was it a bad idea there also?

"Trout fishing in Missouri adds up in dollars and cents."

Wanna guess where that quote came from?

>Take a look.

http://www.branson.com/lake-taneycomo <link edited>

Are you naive, stupid, or just a whore?

Fish belong where they belong,
R

[egildone]

wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 21:36:40 -0600, egildone
> > wrote:
>
>
>> It seems to have worked out OK at Lake Taneycomo near Branson, Mo..
>
> No, it hasn't.
>
>> That one was developed in 1958.....before yuppies existed.
>
> Yes, it was...no, it wasn't.

I was there. There were hippies in 58, but no yuppies.

>
>> Was it a bad idea there also?
>
> "Trout fishing in Missouri adds up in dollars and cents."
>
> Wanna guess where that quote came from?
>
>> Take a look.
>
> http://www.branson.com/lake-taneycomo <link edited>
>
> Are you naive, stupid, or just a whore?
>
> Fish belong where they belong,
> R


Oppps! We had better take the stripers out of Lake Texoma and the
Walleye out of the Lakes in OK. They don't belong there. We can keep
the Sauger, though, they are native to OK. Oh no! they are only native
to the Arkansas river. We need to take them out of OK lakes.

Ed

[Wolfgang]

On Feb 24, 10:36 pm, wrote:
>
> Are you naive, stupid, or just a whore?

One would like to think that someone who is all three wouldn't have
much trouble identifying kindred spirits. One would likely be
disappointed.

> Fish belong where they belong,

Meanwhile, like ****-weasels, they are where they are.

Wolfgang

[[email protected]]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 08:09:47 -0600, egildone
> wrote:

wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 21:36:40 -0600, egildone
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It seems to have worked out OK at Lake Taneycomo near Branson, Mo..
>>
>> No, it hasn't.
>>
>>> That one was developed in 1958.....before yuppies existed.
>>
>> Yes, it was...no, it wasn't.
>
>I was there. There were hippies in 58, but no yuppies.

You were where?

>Oppps! We had better take the stripers out of Lake Texoma and the
>Walleye out of the Lakes in OK. They don't belong there. We can keep
>the Sauger, though, they are native to OK. Oh no! they are only native
>to the Arkansas river. We need to take them out of OK lakes.

Please point out where I said any of that. Here's a hint: I didn't. And
then please point out where you asked anyone for their thoughts on any
of that. Here's another hint: you didn't.

HTH,
R
>
>Ed

[Wolfgang]

On Feb 25, 8:22 pm, wrote:
> ...please point out where you asked anyone for their thoughts on any
> of that. Here's another hint: you didn't.

And yet, here you are.

Wolfgang
go ahead.....someone.....anyone.....do it. please.

[Cyli]

On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 08:09:47 -0600, egildone
> wrote:

wrote:
>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 21:36:40 -0600, egildone
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It seems to have worked out OK at Lake Taneycomo near Branson, Mo..
>>
>> No, it hasn't.
>>
>>> That one was developed in 1958.....before yuppies existed.
>>
>> Yes, it was...no, it wasn't.
>
>I was there. There were hippies in 58, but no yuppies.
>
>>
I'm old enough to remember '58. There were beatniks, but no hippies.
It was a very mellow transition, with the first of the hippies being
part of the last of the beats, but you never saw a male beatnik
wearing flowers in his hair or any embroidery in any but matching
patches on his jeans. In fact, you weren't likely to see a female
beatnik with flowers in her hair and embroidery on her jeans would
have ranked right up there with poodle skirts in her estimation.

People saying things like, "I'm hip." weren't hippies until later.
They were jazz musicians or beatniks in '58. Or poseurs.

And you're right about yuppies. They started to bloom shortly after
the birth control pill gave them more options in earning power. Which
was about when some of the hippies started turning from flower
children to weedy adults.
--

r.bc: vixen
Minnow goddess, Speaker to squirrels, willow watcher.
Almost entirely harmless. Really.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

[Conan The Librarian]

wrote:

> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:44:49 -0600, Conan The Librarian
> > wrote:
>
>> The local branch of TU
>
> If it isn't now, it was once the largest TU chapter - a big bunch of
> yuppie dip****s - who thought trout in the Guadalupe was a great idea.

I'm pretty sure it's still the largest branch. They advertised it
on their page the last time I looked.

> Yeah, he did...it's a bad idea in Texas, and it's a bad idea in
> Oklahoma. There's plenty of great native fishing, as well as stocking
> of appropriate species, and yet, a relative few yuppie idiots who by-God
> think that they know what's best have done what yuppies generally do:
> put their own selfish interests ahead of what's right.

I can't disagree there, but I wouldn't just put it at the feet of
yuppies. The folks I've seen on the stream (yes, I've fished the area
in question) seem to be a mix of yuppies and good-ole-boys. (FWIW, when
I lived in Wimberley my plumber was a member and regular fisher of the
trophy section, and he's about as good-ole-boy as you get. Anecdotal
evidence to be sure, but that's been my experience.)

IMHO, the attitude is more of linked to the Texas way of doing
things than to a particular subgroup. It's the, "we're Texas by-Gawd,
and we'll do whatever we want to, Mom Nature be damned".

My biggest beef with it is what you mention about native species (or
at least appropriate ones). That area is prime water for the native
Guadalupe bass, and I just worry about the day when the trout boys
decide that the bass are a "nuisance". (It's already happening with
striped bass who live in the same water. Right now on the GRTU site
they're talking about holding their second "striper tournament" where
they try to catch and kill as many stripers as possible.)

> TC,
> R
> ...and if you weren't aware, they've tried stocking up by PK, too - same
> mess, different river and dam...

That's the one that Big Dale talks about, no?


Chuck Vance (he calls the 'bows "striper candy", IIRC)

[Wolfgang]

"Cyli" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 08:09:47 -0600, egildone
> > wrote:
>
wrote:
>>> On Sat, 24 Feb 2007 21:36:40 -0600, egildone
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> It seems to have worked out OK at Lake Taneycomo near Branson, Mo..
>>>
>>> No, it hasn't.
>>>
>>>> That one was developed in 1958.....before yuppies existed.
>>>
>>> Yes, it was...no, it wasn't.
>>
>>I was there. There were hippies in 58, but no yuppies.
>>
>>>
> I'm old enough to remember '58. There were beatniks, but no hippies.
> It was a very mellow transition, with the first of the hippies being
> part of the last of the beats, but you never saw a male beatnik
> wearing flowers in his hair or any embroidery in any but matching
> patches on his jeans. In fact, you weren't likely to see a female
> beatnik with flowers in her hair and embroidery on her jeans would
> have ranked right up there with poodle skirts in her estimation.
>
> People saying things like, "I'm hip." weren't hippies until later.
> They were jazz musicians or beatniks in '58. Or poseurs.
>
> And you're right about yuppies. They started to bloom shortly after
> the birth control pill gave them more options in earning power. Which
> was about when some of the hippies started turning from flower
> children to weedy adults.

The creatures referred to these days as "yuppies" have been with us since
time immemorial. The term itself has barely graduated beyond neologism and
already shows unmistakable signs of progeria. That it has lasted as long as
it has is something of a lexical miracle based primarily on a widespread and
irresistible need among a large segment of the population to find
someone......ANYONE......to sneer at.

Wolfgang
and don't even get me started on the bobos!

[Wayne Knight]

On Feb 26, 8:47 am, Conan The Librarian > wrote:

> That area is prime water for the native
> Guadalupe bass, and I just worry about the day when the trout boys
> decide that the bass are a "nuisance".

Well Bass are a nuisance, aren't they?

Seems to me the issue is with the damn dams and what to do when they
finish building them. If they (the Corps, TVA, whoever) is going to
make a big lake and draw water from the bottom then that, not TU or
other fisheries groups, is what has had the effect on the native
species. If the dam operators are going to change the river character
beyond the change by putting the dam up that keeps the native fishery
from surviving, then do something else with it if you can.

[Conan The Librarian]

Wayne Knight wrote:

> On Feb 26, 8:47 am, Conan The Librarian > wrote:
>
>> That area is prime water for the native
>>Guadalupe bass, and I just worry about the day when the trout boys
>>decide that the bass are a "nuisance".
>
> Well Bass are a nuisance, aren't they?

Actually, the little hatchery trout are the nuisance. Gawd put the
Guads in that stretch of river.

> Seems to me the issue is with the damn dams and what to do when they
> finish building them. If they (the Corps, TVA, whoever) is going to
> make a big lake and draw water from the bottom then that, not TU or
> other fisheries groups, is what has had the effect on the native
> species. If the dam operators are going to change the river character
> beyond the change by putting the dam up that keeps the native fishery
> from surviving, then do something else with it if you can.

Ah, but the natives are surviving just fine. They may not hang out
right below the dam, but Guads in particular are tolerant of cooler
water. In fact, on a "normal" Texas stream, they tend to congregate in
water that is coolest and fastest-moving.

And the stripers do just fine right below the dam. (That's why the
trout guys are holding catch-and-kill tournaments for them.) In fact,
recently there was a 30+ pound striper caught near the dam.

It's the trout who are dying out whenever there's a drought or
flood, and thus have to keep being re-stocked in an effort to maintain a
"self-sustaining" fishery. The other guys have been surviving just fine
in times of low-water levels or flooding.


Chuck Vance

[[email protected]]

On 26 Feb 2007 07:15:38 -0800, "Wayne Knight" >
wrote:

>On Feb 26, 8:47 am, Conan The Librarian > wrote:
>
>> That area is prime water for the native
>> Guadalupe bass, and I just worry about the day when the trout boys
>> decide that the bass are a "nuisance".
>
>Well Bass are a nuisance, aren't they?

Snob...

>Seems to me the issue is with the damn dams and what to do when they
>finish building them. If they (the Corps, TVA, whoever) is going to
>make a big lake and draw water from the bottom then that, not TU or
>other fisheries groups, is what has had the effect on the native
>species. If the dam operators are going to change the river character
>beyond the change by putting the dam up that keeps the native fishery
>from surviving, then do something else with it if you can.

Well, the problem is that there are no natural "lakes" of any size in
Texas or Oklahoma, and so, to provide them, just about every river of
any size has dams, and often numerous dams. The Guadalupe at Canyon is
such a place, and due to the overall situation (much of which Chuck
pointed out), these simply aren't suitable habitats for trout. But
since the general population can be made to (involuntarily) pay for it,
trout get stocked for the amusement of a few.

Stripers are a whole different, um, kettle of fish. I'm not
particularly against stocking (in general - of any species, anywhere)
but I am totally against stocking of species that aren't suitable and
doing it solely for the amusement of a limited few, many of who could
easily afford to go where trout are native or at least in appropriate
habitat. There is plenty of native (and appropriately-stocked) fish in
Texas and Oklahoma, and IMO, stocking trout is just as bad as would be
an attempt to stock pelagic species in the often large, deep lakes the
dams create.

TC,
R

[[email protected]]

On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:48:23 -0600, Conan The Librarian
> wrote:

>Wayne Knight wrote:
>
>> On Feb 26, 8:47 am, Conan The Librarian > wrote:
>>
>>> That area is prime water for the native
>>>Guadalupe bass, and I just worry about the day when the trout boys
>>>decide that the bass are a "nuisance".
>>
>> Well Bass are a nuisance, aren't they?
>
> Actually, the little hatchery trout are the nuisance. Gawd put the
>Guads in that stretch of river.
>
>> Seems to me the issue is with the damn dams and what to do when they
>> finish building them. If they (the Corps, TVA, whoever) is going to
>> make a big lake and draw water from the bottom then that, not TU or
>> other fisheries groups, is what has had the effect on the native
>> species. If the dam operators are going to change the river character
>> beyond the change by putting the dam up that keeps the native fishery
>> from surviving, then do something else with it if you can.
>
> Ah, but the natives are surviving just fine. They may not hang out
>right below the dam, but Guads in particular are tolerant of cooler
>water. In fact, on a "normal" Texas stream, they tend to congregate in
>water that is coolest and fastest-moving.
>
> And the stripers do just fine right below the dam. (That's why the
>trout guys are holding catch-and-kill tournaments for them.) In fact,
>recently there was a 30+ pound striper caught near the dam.
>
> It's the trout who are dying out whenever there's a drought or
>flood, and thus have to keep being re-stocked in an effort to maintain a
>"self-sustaining" fishery. The other guys have been surviving just fine
>in times of low-water levels or flooding.

OK, if THIS doesn't convince folks it's a bad idea, what possibly could:
Chuck and I are apparently in complete agreement...and we're both trout
fishermen who, I'll go out on a limb and speak for him, would both very
much like to have trout fishing closer to us if it were appropriate.

TC,
R
>
>
> Chuck Vance

[Conan The Librarian]

wrote:

> On Mon, 26 Feb 2007 09:48:23 -0600, Conan The Librarian
> > wrote:
>
>> It's the trout who are dying out whenever there's a drought or
>>flood, and thus have to keep being re-stocked in an effort to maintain a
>>"self-sustaining" fishery. The other guys have been surviving just fine
>>in times of low-water levels or flooding.
>
> OK, if THIS doesn't convince folks it's a bad idea, what possibly could:
> Chuck and I are apparently in complete agreement...and we're both trout
> fishermen who, I'll go out on a limb and speak for him, would both very
> much like to have trout fishing closer to us if it were appropriate.

Absolutely. In fact, I have tried to get into fishing for trout on
the Guadalupe. (Really, I have.) It's just that the whole thing is so
artificial. And every year I hear the poor TU guys bemoaning some sort
of natural "disaster" (read: regular weather pattern or even competition
from a warmwater fish species) that has befallen their poor precious
trout. (And don't get me started on their lease program.)

When it comes right down to it, I am reminded how much more fun it
is to hike the Pedernales (or any number of other Texas streams) and
catch fish that are in their natural habitat; fish who seemingly manage
to survive despite whatever Mother Nature throws at them.


Chuck Vance

[MajorOz]

On Feb 23, 9:08 pm, wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:04:10 -0600, egildone
>
> > wrote:
> >Looks like Oklahoma Wildlife Department is developing a first rate Trout
> >fishery in Oklahoma.
>
> Yeah, maybe next, they'll start a marlin fishery in Optima...little
> bitty marlin that can swim in a few inches of water...
>
>
>
> >http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/streamrest.htm
>
> >What do you think?
>
> I think if God/Mother Nature had thought a "first-class trout fishery"
> in Oklahoma was a good idea, he/she would have placed one there...and I
> also think that every time man attempts to put fish where they don't
> belong, ...

....and who decides where they do and don't belong?

cheers

oz, in the middle of bass lakes and trout rivers.

[Wolfgang]

On Feb 26, 8:03 pm, "MajorOz" > wrote:
> On Feb 23, 9:08 pm, wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 13:04:10 -0600, egildone
>
> > > wrote:
> > >Looks like Oklahoma Wildlife Department is developing a first rate Trout
> > >fishery in Oklahoma.
>
> > Yeah, maybe next, they'll start a marlin fishery in Optima...little
> > bitty marlin that can swim in a few inches of water...
>
> > >http://www.wildlifedepartment.com/streamrest.htm
>
> > >What do you think?
>
> > I think if God/Mother Nature had thought a "first-class trout fishery"
> > in Oklahoma was a good idea, he/she would have placed one there...and I
> > also think that every time man attempts to put fish where they don't
> > belong, ...
>
> ...and who decides where they do and don't belong?

I'm afraid that would be me.

Wolfgang
well, who else is qualified? :(

[Wayne Knight]

"Conan The Librarian" > wrote in message
...
> Actually, the little hatchery trout are the nuisance. Gawd put the Guads
> in that stretch of river.

If I read your responses correctly, immediately downstream from the dam.

Look I am no big fan of tailwater fisheries tho I have fished them and even
traveled to fish one (San Juan). I have always considered the Guadalupe as
Texas's way of saying let there be trout but thought that it was a little
too far south, bottom draw dam or not. I'm kind of surprised you didn't
bring up the fire ant hatch on the Guadalupe either. IIRC, there was a
pretty good fish kill there in the 90's when the trout gorged themselves on
ants, which stung/poisoned them on the the ants way into the trout's inards.
Me thinks the Striped Bass aren't native to that watershed either and
remember the talk in GA when the stripers used to migrate upstream on the
Chattahoochee from West Point Lake (though the DNR said they didn't and if
they did they didn't eat trout).

But your original supposition was because of the Guadalupe, the OK thing
wasn't going to make it either. Not that I would travel to fish it either
and i have some debates on another internet area with some OK fisherman who
thought it was a crime for folks to take any trout from their tailraces (not
sure if it was the one referenced or not).

Right or wrong, trout have been introduced into some places where God never
intended (Argentina, New Zealand, Chile, San Juan Dam NM) which come to mind
and bass have been stocked in lakes created by dams on trout streams. The
Bass guys travel miles to run their boats on those artificial fisheries just
like some folks lay down big bucks to catch sea run browns in Argentina. At
least in the OK case, its in the Southeast part of the state not toooooooo
far from the Ozarks where there are some spring creeks supporting self
sustaining trout populations (which were of course-introduced).

I doubt the folks put those dams there with the intent of making an
artificial trout fishery, it's just the by product. Just because there are
issues with the Guadalupe, doesn't make it so everywhere else.

[Wayne Knight]

> wrote in message
...

> Snob...

And don't you forget it either.

> There is plenty of native (and appropriately-stocked) fish in
> Texas and Oklahoma, and IMO, stocking trout is just as bad as would be
> an attempt to stock pelagic species in the often large, deep lakes the
> dams create.

I don't know the fish politics in either state other than what I read or
hear. The Guadalupe thing always intrigued me that some thought it could be
self sustaining. SE Oklahoma is a different geography and it might work, or
it might not. Not that I nor anyone else think it shouldn't be done, they
did, now lets see what happens ten years or so down the road.

[Conan The Librarian]

Wayne Knight wrote:

> "Conan The Librarian" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Actually, the little hatchery trout are the nuisance. Gawd put the Guads
>>in that stretch of river.
>
> If I read your responses correctly, immediately downstream from the dam.

I'm not sure what you mean with this comment.

> Look I am no big fan of tailwater fisheries tho I have fished them and even
> traveled to fish one (San Juan). I have always considered the Guadalupe as
> Texas's way of saying let there be trout but thought that it was a little
> too far south, bottom draw dam or not. I'm kind of surprised you didn't
> bring up the fire ant hatch on the Guadalupe either. IIRC, there was a
> pretty good fish kill there in the 90's when the trout gorged themselves on
> ants, which stung/poisoned them on the the ants way into the trout's inards.

Yeah, they lost a lot of fish one year (1998?). Supposedly they
died from a toxin in the ants' bodies rather than stings.

> Me thinks the Striped Bass aren't native to that watershed either and

No, they're not native. But they seem to co-exist with the natives
and survive just fine despite the droughts and floods. Trout don't
without the constant efforts of the folks who are trying to create the
fishery for them.

Yes, I have been known to wax poetic about the native fishes down
here, but I'm not against non-native species. I just prefer the
environment where some of the natives live. The Guadalupe bass in
particular seem to be found in water that is clean and cool and fast,
and in settings that are among the prettiest I have found.

> remember the talk in GA when the stripers used to migrate upstream on the
> Chattahoochee from West Point Lake (though the DNR said they didn't and if
> they did they didn't eat trout).
>
> But your original supposition was because of the Guadalupe, the OK thing
> wasn't going to make it either.

IIRC, I commented that it didn't look promising. The pictures that
were referenced showed improvements that made the area look like a nice
stream, but if they have floods in that area like we have, that
structure wouldn't last long. (It's not uncommon for the flows to go
from less than 100 cfs to over 10,000. And a quick Google check shows
rates of 167,00 in 1997, over 100,000 in 1998, well over that in the
flood of 2002 when water came *over* the spillway.)

I assume they have droughts in that area as well, and I know the
effect they have on the trout down here. (Despite the agreement with
the river authority folks to keep the flow at about 150 CFS throughout
the summer, this last year it was below 100 for much of the summer.
Given that we have droughts every few years, I expect the same thing
will happen again soon.) So from a purely practical point-of-view, I
questioned the logic of it.

> Not that I would travel to fish it either
> and i have some debates on another internet area with some OK fisherman who
> thought it was a crime for folks to take any trout from their tailraces (not
> sure if it was the one referenced or not).
>
> Right or wrong, trout have been introduced into some places where God never
> intended (Argentina, New Zealand, Chile, San Juan Dam NM) which come to mind
> and bass have been stocked in lakes created by dams on trout streams. The
> Bass guys travel miles to run their boats on those artificial fisheries just
> like some folks lay down big bucks to catch sea run browns in Argentina. At
> least in the OK case, its in the Southeast part of the state not toooooooo
> far from the Ozarks where there are some spring creeks supporting self
> sustaining trout populations (which were of course-introduced).
>
> I doubt the folks put those dams there with the intent of making an
> artificial trout fishery, it's just the by product. Just because there are
> issues with the Guadalupe, doesn't make it so everywhere else.

Well, the original poster asked for comments, and I gave him my take
from having seen firsthand what can happen when people want to play
gawd. Maybe it can work in OK, and if it does, I'll be happy to say I
was wrong.

But if it "works" by them having to re-stock to replace the fish
because they are getting wiped out on a regular basis by normal weather
happenings (as it does down here), and take extraordinary measures to
try to control waterflows for their survival, then I question their
judgement.


Chuck Vance (so, you planning any trips to the Smokies soon? It
looks like I'll be heading that way in early May if all goes well)

[Wayne Knight]

On Feb 27, 8:17 am, Conan The Librarian > wrote:

> (so, you planning any trips to the Smokies soon? It
> looks like I'll be heading that way in early May if all goes well

Trying to plan one right now. Tho I think mine will have to be either
later April or late May. I would prefer April but we'll see.

[egildone]

Conan The Librarian wrote:

> Well, the original poster asked for comments, and I gave him my take
> from having seen firsthand what can happen when people want to play
> gawd.

Genesis 1:26

26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and
let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over
the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that
move along the ground."


That tells me God gave us permission to do whatever we want with them.

Ed

(The flames are dying down, so I thought I'd rekindle the fire)

[Conan The Librarian]

egildone wrote:

> Conan The Librarian wrote:
>
>> Well, the original poster asked for comments, and I gave him my
>> take from having seen firsthand what can happen when people want to
>> play gawd.
>
> Genesis 1:26
>
> 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and
> let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over
> the livestock, over all the earth, [a] and over all the creatures that
> move along the ground."
>
>
> That tells me God gave us permission to do whatever we want with them.

My Mother Nature can beat up your god.


Chuck Vance

[Wayne Knight]

On Feb 27, 12:27 pm, egildone > wrote:

> That tells me God gave us permission to do whatever we want with them.

Sheesh, you had to go and post that. That's the same line of thought
some "men" use to beat their women and dogs. I believe He meant
stewardship.

Enjoy your tailwater.


> (The flames are dying down, so I thought I'd rekindle the fire)

Thankfully no one as of yet seems to want to add fuel.

[Wolfgang]

On Feb 27, 7:15 pm, "Wayne Knight" > wrote:
> On Feb 27, 12:27 pm, egildone > wrote:
>
> > That tells me God gave us permission to do whatever we want with them.
>
> Sheesh, you had to go and post that. That's the same line of thought
> some "men" use to beat their women and dogs. I believe He meant
> stewardship.
>
> Enjoy your tailwater.
>
> > (The flames are dying down, so I thought I'd rekindle the fire)
>
> Thankfully no one as of yet seems to want to add fuel.

Throwing good wood on **** soaked panties is as dull as it is futile
and malodorous.

Wolfgang