Conasauga Report 8/9-8/11

[acurasquirrel]

This Sunday my friend and I headed up to the Cohutta wilderness to do a little backpacking/fishing. We arrived late Sunday and setup camp. Monday we fished mainly upstream in hopes of finding some brookies. After hiking a mile or so up a tributary and finding only small browns we went a little further up the conasauga where I landed this nice brown.
http://www.acurasquirrel.com/cohuttafish/images/DSCN0241.jpg
We headed back to camp, made dinner and went to bed. Tuesday we fished downstream on the connie to Poplar Camp creek and again we fished it upstream about a mile. We came to a large waterfall which I was sure would be a natural block for the rainbows and browns and maybe there we could locate a brookie. Once again we were skunked on the brookies, but I did manage to land this rainbow.
http://www.acurasquirrel.com/cohuttafish/images/DSCN0247.jpg
We came back down the creek and fished even further downstream on the connie where my friend landed this nice brown.
http://www.acurasquirrel.com/cohuttafish/images/DSCN0261.jpg

All in all the trip was a blast. Unfortunately we didnt land any brookies. Id like to catch one before I leave for the Navy before Thanksgiving, maybe ill head northeast now. Here are the rest of the pictures from the trip.

Conasauga Fishing (http://www.acurasquirrel.com/cohuttafish/)

[Windknot]

Thanks for sharing your trip with us.

I'm stuck at work, and your pictures entertained several folks, none of whom fish or hike. I had to explain that the guy was washing his hair and face, not looking for trout! ;)

These 5 minute vacations are a blessing!

As to your impending cruise - best of luck to you, and thanks for stepping up.

Don

[dqueen]

Nice pictures! If you want brookies, I think you need to try another stream. I've fished all the way up to the headwaters and it's rainbows and browns. Some of the tribs might hold brookies, I don't know.

[mb90535im]

One of (if not the) most beautiful place on Earth. I sure hope you guys ate all those pretty trout you killed.

[acurasquirrel]

One of (if not the) most beautiful place on Earth. I sure hope you guys ate all those pretty trout you killed.

Just so you know only one trout was killed and it wasnt on purpose. The trout fell from my friends hand onto a rock. Everything else was released in good shape. Yes we did eat the ONE trout that died. Enjoy living in your perfect world where you can rip every trout from its home unwillingly and it survive. We didnt go up there with the intentions of killing fish, but sometimes it happens.

[Roffwarg]

Awesome report and real nice pics. What trail did you guys come in on? Was this at the start of the Conasauga River Trail at Betty Gap?

[TroutTackler]

I think that if you don't kill a fish every now and then, you neglect to acknowledge the original purpose of it all.

And dang, they taste good, too!

[acurasquirrel]

We came in on the Chestnut Lead trail. Here is a map I put together of where we all fished based on what gps coordinates I was able to get. Blue was Monday and red was Tuesday. Light blue blob being camp. Green was the trail in.
http://www.acurasquirrel.com/blogpics/cohutta.jpg

[Roffwarg]

Great map. I did the same type of trip two years ago, coming in at Betty Gap at the beginnign of the con. riv. tr. and coming out on chestnut lead. I only caught rainbows on my trip, so the browns confused me as to where you were fishing, but I guess I just missed them.

[Path_Less_Traveled]

In response to "I sure hope you guys ate all those pretty trout you killed" ... you have to consider the aquatic biology in this area.. below is a quote from the DNR's Mr. Couch's post that contains information from Lee Keefer, DNR fisheries biologist...

But first, my conclusion is this: there is natural mortality regardless... it is more likely with the larger fish (the ones we tend to keep anyway)... and anglers accidently killing (and therefore having to keep) a few fish make absolutely no difference in the angling quality/quanity... i dont think anyone on NGTO would go fishing with the intention of unneccesarily killing wild trout.... however, when fishing in any stream containing wild fish, i always debarb to minimize impact on the fish's health... i can always keep a couple that i catch with the barbless (though i never have)... also, handling of the fish during release is, imo, just as or more important than the hook and hooking configuration.... as one NGTO poster pointed out, if we were the trout, it would be like us sprinting a 100 yard dash, then having our head dunked in a bucket of water.


"I forwarded your question to Lee Keefer, Biologist at Burton SFH. Lee prepared the attached. This may be one of those post that should be referenced and refered to in the future.

Bill, as you are aware, the primary limiting factor controling the size
and abundance of trout in N. Georgia streams is the relatively low
fertility of our waters compaired to other trout areas. Due to the geology
of the area, our waters have a very low level of dissolved minerals,
particularly calcium, and have very low productivity. This low
productivity overshadows all other factors in determining the abundance of
trout in our streams. The success of trout feeding programs in dramaticly
increasing both the number and size of fish are ample testimony to this.

The overall impact of reduced bag (number) limits has been fairly well
researched, and they have been found to have very little impact on the
total harvest of fish in most fisheries, unless very low limits are
imposed, such as 1 or 2 fish. Analysis of angler catch (creel) data
reveals that the vast majority of fish are harvested 1, 2, or 3 fish at a
time, not by limit catches. In other words, most people do not catch a
limit of fish, or even close to it, but catch a few fish at a time. We
tend to notice and remember the limit or over the limit catches we observe,
but they are a relatively rare occurance. I, and other biologists have
modeled completed trip creel data to determine the impact of reduced creel
limits, and generally, in most situations, limits must be reduced to 1 or
2 fish in order to result in a meaningfull reduction in the total harvest
of fish. Also, particularly with trout in the South, it is difficult to
stockpile fish, because of natural mortality. Mortality seems to be
compensatory in most cases, such that if you reduce mortality due to
angling, natural mortality will increase to "compensate". As a result,
total mortality will remain about the same. Looking at it another way,
moderate increases in angler harvest are often "compensated for" by
reductions in natural mortality, such that the overall numbers of fish in
the population remain unchanged.

Compensatory mortality is common among almost all wildlife populations, not just trout. In most cases, it allows us to harvest a portion of any given population without impacting the long term numbers of individuals in that population. Trout seem to have a natural size and age which few individuals will exceed, even in unfished streams. For wild RBT, 3 years and 9-11" appear to be the maximum expected age and size in Southern
streams, with a few individuals making it to age 4 or 5, and 11-13". BNT
will live somewhat longer and can attain a little larger size, on average.
Reseachers in the GSMNP have studied some streams on the park that have
been closed to angling for many years, and the size structure and density
of fish populations is not significantly different from similar streams
that are open to fishing.

A very restrictive bag limit, such as 1 fish, 8" or longer, could spread
the harvest of fish out to more anglers, and might result in a somewhat
higher catch rate in some streams. It would probably not result in
significantly more "Big" fish in the stream, however.

Up till now we have assumed that the general angling public did not want such a severe restriction as a 1 or 2 fish limit placed on them. We are in the process of conducting a trout angler survey to determine the opinions
of trout anglers on a number of issues, and several questions concerning
lower size limits and more restrictive regulations are asked in this
survey.

The bottom line is that lower bag limits will not change an infertile N.
Georgia stream into the Yellowstone River in Montana."

I'm just trying to point out the facts... this thread has been moved (i dont know why)... so please, no emotional responses.

Added: the 2001 thread containing the above quote...
http://www.georgia-outdoors.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47342&highlight=jones+creek

[mb90535im]

To clarify -

I have no problem whatsoever with anyone harvesting the legal daily creel limit. I made my comment based on two observations:

First, the manner in which the fish (in August non the less) were handled and poised for photos. I doubt very seriously that "all but the one that fell and hit its head on a rock, were released unharmed." They might have appeared OK when released, but my opionion is that they very likely were not.

Second, and maybe I missed this one, but I didn't see the obligatory "fish in the frying pan" photo that we all like to take when we fry up a mess of tasty wild trout. The only "cooking" photo I saw looked like an out of control flame thrower.

I believe the comments in the above post are absolutely correct, the streams and rivers of the Cohutta's receive so little fishing pressure, that normal harvesting of a few trout for the frying pan does no harm to the population. I just hope folks aren't returning trout to the stream that have a small chance of survival when they can be put to good use, the nourishment of our bodies as God intended.

[Path_Less_Traveled]

Yep... pretty much agree... you made some good points... first, you mentioned "august"... the fish are much easier stressed when it gets warmer... there is a thread somewhere containing a nice post on summer migration patterns of browns in the Chattooga... very informative, but i cant find it right now... pretty much said browns (and i assume rainbow would too) hunker down and go into some kind of hibernation in marginal waters during the summer.... and they dont move more out of their 150 yard home base.... very interesting...

Your last point was very good... that's why i mentioned about going barbless and quick/gentle handling... if it takes more than 5-10 seconds to de-hook, then they go back into the water for a breather first... then i try to remove the hook underwater... the dilema comes when you have really small fish you're wondering will live or not, and it's long hike out.... guess that's where the compensatory mortality comes in... i think that if we keep in mind that we anglers are stewards of the stream and do the best we can, it's fine.