NGTO Message Board
Welcome to NGTO!
Home ] [ Membership ] [ Donations ] [ Feedback ] [ Stream Reviews ] [ Stream Reports ] [ Maps ] [ Events ] [ Articles ] [ Rules and Regulations ] [ Archives ] Message Board ] FAQ ] [ Hall of Fame ] Sponsors & Supporters ] About ] [ Witticisms ] [ Distinguished Members ]
Welcome to NGTO!

Go Back   NGTO Message Board > Fishing Reports > Chattahoochee River
Register Blogs FAQ Members List Calendar Photo Gallery Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 11-29-17, 05:04 PM   #31
Dylar
Native
 
Dylar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 172
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleRainbow View Post
Dylar, I believe we are on two ends of a spectrum. You gave a great microscopic analysis on what it takes to get bigger trout. I was posting much more broadly in favor for a healthier and more abundant population of self sustaining Brown trout within the Hooch. Do we need a more abundant population? I sure would like it and I am sure others would too, but further research would be needed to assess the viability of this.

I do agree that biomass is a critical factor in the growth of larger trout than we have today, and increasing carrying capacity would not have an impact on this. If I skewed my post to make it sound like it would, it was not intentional. As you have read, I clarify this at the end of my post. What I was conveying was an increased carrying capacity, and therefore population number, would statistically increase the probability of a larger number of trout in the subjective "big" trout range in the future. Am I saying that the trout would be larger than they are today due to a higher carrying capacity? No, but it would hypothetically increase the number of trout in the size group of say 14-18 inches given lots of time. The variances in the number of those increases in each size class would be very different given time elapsed/conditions. Admittedly "lunker" was not the term to use in my original post and I wholeheartedly agree with you that trout exhibit indeterminate growth.

I agree that most fisheries are geared towards a numbers game or a size game, but to realistically sustain and maintain a naturally reproducing brown trout population like we have in the Hooch, we need to find a healthy balance between the two.
An ecosystem that remains consistently near to, but not exceeding its carrying capacity in biomass is already in, "healthy balance." It doesn't really matter whether the average fish is small or large, unless that is being skewed by the absence of several year classes.

Quote:
I would be cautious to assume that cold, oxygenated water is more important than fertilized egg viability and forage abundance in terms of trout population density within the Hooch specifically.
Water quality is also one of, and possibly THE most important external variable in reproductive success, though. As long as there is clean, cold water, consistent flow and pea gravel, trout will successfully spawn. Period. How fast they grow and how big they get after the eggs is related to other factors, but if the water is cold and clean and the spawning habitat is there in sufficient quantity, there will be plenty of trout.

Quote:
It is a tailwater and provides cold, oxygenated water year-round.
It does not, however, supply these in equal measure throughout the system. Within any tailwater, there will always be sections with higher temps and lower dissolved oxygen content—areas with slower flows, silted areas, areas downstream of long rip rap banks or stretches with exposed bedrock, the confluences with warmwater tributaries, the areas well downstream of the initial release pulse—these are all likely to marginal or near marginal water in terms of temp and dissolved O˛, especially in a lower lying tailwater like the Chattahoochee or the lower Saluda in SC.


Quote:
It primarily needs help in the other 2 factors, and I simply mentioned the most realistic factor that we can change (fertilized egg viability).
...which is itself is in large measure a product of water quality in the spawning habitat.

Quote:
I respectfully disagree with your application of the relationship between the infertility in GSMNP and its high population density of trout.
How so? The waters are unquestionably infertile, and the trout densities unquestionably very high. All I'm saying is that the numbers of fish and the density of the population aren't closely related to the richness of the forage base.

Quote:
To apply characteristics of an area like GSMNP drainage systems to a tailwater like the Hooch doesn't fit well.
I'm not applying the characteristics of a mountain freestone to a tailwater; I'm applying the characteristics of trout to trout. A trout's requirements to survive and reproduce are the same across habitat types. Whether they live in an Appalachian blue line, a Piedmont tailwater, an alpine lake or an English chalk stream, every trout needs the same things to live an breed. They don't care about the wrapping paper; all that matters is what's in the box.

Quote:
The areas are vastly different and I suspect that the high population of trout in the GSMNP is bolstered by increased stocking as it is more of a fishing destination regionally than the Hooch.
There's no stocking in GSMNP, only wild fish.

Quote:
In regards to stocking, I don't see a problem with it on the Hooch. Most of those rainbows don't survive for long, and if they do, their level of propagation has been proven to be unsustainable.
The problem with dumping stockers on wild fish is that the bigger, more aggressive stocked fish crowd young wild fish out of the habitat, forcing them into less desirable holding locations and otucompeting them for food. The bulk of any wild trout population consists of fish 1-2 years old in the 5-7" range. The average stocker goes in at 10-11". You do the math.


Quote:
Areas like your home rivers I am on your side, I'd hate to see my brookie stream stocked with browns or bows, but most people fish to eat.
So? Most people used to live in caves and wipe their asses with their bare hands.

Quote:
If some of the other streams are not stocked, I'm sure a higher number of wild fish would find themselves on a dinner plate, and I'm sure you and I both realize this.
Again, so? Impose reasonable size and bag limits and enforce them and wild fish will be just fine. The idea that recreational angling could significantly impact an ecosystem on the scale of the Hooch tailwater is borderline laughable. It would have a lot less impact than having tens of thousands of (comparatively) giant stockers dropped on their heads every year.

Quote:
Also, a word of caution. I'd avoid derogatory statements towards any state's DNR within this forum. They do a great service for us and most users on this forum respect their effort and dedication, even if we disagree with some of the things that they do.
I appreciate the warning, and I know that most individual personnel at state management agencies are dedicated, conscientious people doing their best. At the same time, "By their fruits ye shall know them," and the management "fruits" have often been somewhere between mediocre and absolutely freaking catastrophic for many agencies in this end of the country.

Long term, I think the best things that can be done to improve a fishery like the Hooch are ending or limiting stocking and enforcing and improving the riparian buffers along the river and its tributaries. Water quality management—mostly keeping the silt out and maintaining good minimum flows to keep the gravel clean—is king here. I know some states have experimented with adding lime sand to neutralize acid content and maybe juice the flow a little, but that seems like probably a lot of work and expense with probably a fairly limited payoff. Protecting the watershed from runoff and not dumping a bunch of space eating, disease vector pellheads on top of them will go a lot further toward aiding the wild brown population.

Last edited by Dylar; 11-29-17 at 05:21 PM.
Dylar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-17, 05:58 PM   #32
Sighter
NGTO Instagram Controller
 
Sighter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Gwinnett County
Posts: 626
Default

1.) I was under the assumption you mentioned the GSMNP Drainages included the rivers that they create also, which are stocked with trout. Just simple a misunderstanding

2.)
Quote:
An ecosystem that remains consistently near to, but not exceeding its carrying capacity in biomass is already in, "healthy balance." It doesn't really matter whether the average fish is small or large, unless that is being skewed by the absence of several year classes.
Well of course? I will state again, I said an increased carrying capacity, and therefore population number would statistically increase the PROBABILITY of a larger number of trout in the subjective "big" trout range in the future (given some barred variables and time elapsed). In terms of healthier, it was in terms of reproductive fitness, which I mentioned earlier...

3.)
Quote:
It does not, however, supply these in equal measure throughout the system. Within any tailwater, there will always be sections with higher temps and lower dissolved oxygen content—areas with slower flows, silted areas, areas downstream of long rip rap banks or stretches with exposed bedrock, the confluences with warmwater tributaries, the areas well downstream of the initial release pulse—these are all likely to marginal or near marginal water in terms of temp and dissolved O˛, especially in a lower lying tailwater like the Chattahoochee or the lower Saluda in SC.
Yes that is just a more detailed explanation of what I was trying to convey, I am saying what we can change realistically to help brown trout population density (by increased viability). If you have a more realistic way we can increase either Dissolved Oxygen DO, Habitable range, or forage let me know. But be know that this topic has already been discussed multiple times in the forum.

4.)
Quote:
Whether they live in an Appalachian blue line, a Piedmont tailwater, an alpine lake or an English chalk stream, every trout needs the same things to live an breed. They don't care about the wrapping paper; all that matters is what's in the box.
Yes, a VERY General explanation. But you must analyze each factor that leads to variations... otherwise why would there be any variation at all if all the bodies of water met this threshold of "enough in the box". These details do matter and you can't get trout without viable reproduction. Downplaying this factor is not feasible for any species. Should we increase it though? Maybe, maybe not, depends on the state of our Hooch right now.

5.) How so? The waters are unquestionably infertile, and the trout densities unquestionably very high. All I'm saying is that the numbers of fish and the density of the population aren't closely related to the richness of the forage base.

I was under the impression you were speaking about infertility in terms of reproduction viability. I was arguing that the Hooch is just as infertile in terms of viability as the GSMNP. Rainbows and Brook trout cannot successfully reproduce here and sustain a population, which is already feasible in the GSMNP. I never stated anything about relation of numbers to forage base, just that they are important features in populations density.

Great discussion so far, though you're not from the area, I do go to NC sometimes and hope to see you on the water! I think this discussion is already getting so long poor Charles grew a beard and ran across the country and back haha.
Sighter is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-17, 09:19 PM   #33
ChaChung
Native
 
ChaChung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 352
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleRainbow View Post
I think this discussion is already getting so long poor Charles grew a beard and ran across the country and back haha.
You got that right! Did you see me run by your dorms at the USC campus? Haha

Interesting topic but mostly hypothetical speculation on both sides right? Got so long I didn't even read the posts in their entirety and almost missed your comment up there. Haha
__________________
Hi my name is Charles and I'm a fishaholic.

Some days I'm the hook and some days I'm the fish.

Instagram @charles_the_toothsmith
ChaChung is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-17, 09:28 PM   #34
Sighter
NGTO Instagram Controller
 
Sighter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Gwinnett County
Posts: 626
Default

I sure did! Was going to join you on your way back to the other side of the coast but alas, my Finals got in the way of that

Yeah very interesting and relevant to what I'm learning now! Yes, all of these points are based on some sort of assumption and the only way to have a definitive answer of what is right or wrong is to have some definitive research.

I did find it reassuring that Splatek was speaking about the genetics and how they play a main role in size. A continuous trait such as size is complex and takes a lot of quantitative genetic studies to pinpoint such causes. A Discrete trait such as the smooth vs wrinkled trait in the ever so popular pea plant studies by Mendel, if applied to trout, would be much easier to pinpoint as there are only two phenotypes. I am also taking Genetics right now with Ecology (needed 2 more upper div Bio classes to graduate) and let's just say it's by far the hardest classes I've taken thus far. So much to be discovered and most things that are known today will change within a matter of years at the rapid rate that it is developing. Exciting, yet difficult stuff.
Sighter is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-17, 09:34 PM   #35
ChaChung
Native
 
ChaChung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Johns Creek, GA
Posts: 352
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleRainbow View Post
I sure did! Was going to join you on your way back to the other side of the coast but alas, my Finals got in the way of that

Yeah very interesting and relevant to what I'm learning now! Yes, all of these points are based on some sort of assumption and the only way to have a definitive answer of what is right or wrong is to have some definitive research.

I did find it reassuring that Splatek was speaking about the genetics and how they play a main role in size. I am also taking Genetics right now with Ecology (needed 2 more upper div Bio classes to graduate) and let's just say it's by far the hardest class right now. So much to be discovered and most things that are known today will change within a matter of years at the rapid rate that it is developing. Exciting yet difficult stuff.
Yup. Good luck on your finals. It's been about 15 years since my last upper division Bio course in college and I can't say I remember anything in detail enough to have a truly scientific discussion... enjoy the last few moments of your college life.
__________________
Hi my name is Charles and I'm a fishaholic.

Some days I'm the hook and some days I'm the fish.

Instagram @charles_the_toothsmith
ChaChung is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-29-17, 09:43 PM   #36
Sighter
NGTO Instagram Controller
 
Sighter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Gwinnett County
Posts: 626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaChung View Post
Yup. Good luck on your finals. It's been about 15 years since my last upper division Bio course in college and I can't say I remember anything in detail enough to have a truly scientific discussion... enjoy the last few moments of your college life.
Thank you Charles! I'll need the luck! Hey, most of those things were replaced by more complex and relevant knowledge to your profession. I'm sure a lot more people are comforted by the fact that you have a great knowledge on those things rather than whether you can speak about the nuances of genetic recombination or running a Western Blot.

I'll be sure to text you to go fish when I am back for good, which will be a little after December 13th
Sighter is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-17, 02:59 PM   #37
Dylar
Native
 
Dylar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 172
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleRainbow View Post
1.) I was under the assumption you mentioned the GSMNP Drainages included the rivers that they create also, which are stocked with trout. Just simple a misunderstanding
No, I'm only talking about trout populations within the Park boundaries, which are sustained exclusively by natural reproduction.

Quote:
2.)

Well of course? I will state again, I said an increased carrying capacity, and therefore population number would statistically increase the PROBABILITY of a larger number of trout in the subjective "big" trout range in the future (given some barred variables and time elapsed). In terms of healthier, it was in terms of reproductive fitness, which I mentioned earlier...
Adding more fish without also increasing the forage base will decrease the probability of growing larger fish. Carrying capacity is fixed. The river can support X lbs of predatory fish on the available forage. This is a zero sum game. The biomass that can be supported stays the same. Increasing the total number of fish necessarily decreases the size of each individual fish. This is simple math.

Quote:
3.)

Yes that is just a more detailed explanation of what I was trying to convey, I am saying what we can change realistically to help brown trout population density (by increased viability). If you have a more realistic way we can increase either Dissolved Oxygen DO, Habitable range, or forage let me know. But be know that this topic has already been discussed multiple times in the forum.
Riparian buffer controls, powerhouse improvements, adjusting minimum flow levels, not stocking on top of breeding trout, development controls, alterations to the hatchery outflow, wing dams and other artificial river structure; there's a lot that can be done, and done without massive investments.

Quote:
4.)
Yes, a VERY General explanation. But you must analyze each factor that leads to variations... otherwise why would there be any variation at all if all the bodies of water met this threshold of "enough in the box".
"Enough in the box" vs "Way more than enough in the box" accounts for a whole lot of the variation. Trout need cold, highly oxygenated water, sufficient forage to survive, and clean pea gravel with suitable flows washing over it. Most fisheries don't have all three in great abundance; the ones that do end up in all the magazines and books.

A lot are like our high mountain free stones; they have near ideal temperature profiles and levels of dissolved oxygen, and lots of great spawning habitat, but they're infertile. They produce very high densities of very small trout. A lot of others are like many of our lower valley major river tributaries, they're more temperature marginal, and there are portions of the year when much of the habitat is unusable due to insufficient dissolved 0˛, they may even have silting problems that limit the availability of suitable spawning habitat, or at least require the fish move a considerable distance to find it. On the flip side, their warmer waters usually carry a higher nutrient load than the small, high elevation feeders. They've got the bait fish and crawdads a trout needs to really pack on the weight. Those sorts of ecosystems tend to produce low fish densities but also churn out some real hogs.

In theory, a tailwater should be one of those magic ecosystems that has it all, but reality being what it is, I doubt there are many places within a given tailwater that provide ideal water temps and dissolved o˛, nearby spawning habitat and a rich forage base in one spot. What you end up with is actually a patchwork of habitats, where different portions of the tailwater serve different functions in the life cycle of the local trout, with the temperature marginal portions of the river serving as seasonal feeding grounds for big predatory adult fish, and the colder, less fecund sections serving more as breeding grounds and nurseries for small fish.

Quote:
These details do matter and you can't get trout without viable reproduction. Downplaying this factor is not feasible for any species. Should we increase it though? Maybe, maybe not, depends on the state of our Hooch right now.
Is there any evidence to suggest that the Chattahoochee wild brown trout are struggling to successfully reproduce?

Quote:
I was under the impression you were speaking about infertility in terms of reproduction viability.
I'm talking about the fertility or fecundity of the ecosystem itself. Nutrient load/forage base

Quote:
I was arguing that the Hooch is just as infertile in terms of viability as the GSMNP. Rainbows and Brook trout cannot successfully reproduce here and sustain a population
Rainbow and brook trout have different spawning requirements and substantially less silt tolerant eggs. They're better adapted to spawning in small feeders (and a low lying tailrace like the Hooch probably doesn't have the necessary cold water tribs), but browns can and will happily use main river gravel. Large numbers of small wild fish are not, generally speaking, seen as a sign of poor reproductive success...

Last edited by Dylar; 11-30-17 at 04:21 PM.
Dylar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-17, 03:53 PM   #38
Sighter
NGTO Instagram Controller
 
Sighter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Gwinnett County
Posts: 626
Default

Dylar, well thanks for clearing that up that you meant within the park boundaries, I already mentioned that it was a clear misunderstanding. You are assuming that the brown trout Hooch are at their optimal carrying capacity currently. This is unrealistic in any ecosystem. I am trying to increase their REALIZED carrying capacity. Carrying capacity literally has biomass, interactions with species such as competition, and other factors within its equation. Also, you are also assuming that the forage of our river is at its maximum capacity. It most likely is not and if that is the case then it could support more trout. It is an ecological fact that human interaction is probably the biggest factor on any species, especially since this is a catch and keep fishery and located within a metropolitan area where all sorts of things go into our rivers. Notably the sewage leaks that seem to arise every 3 years or so. This increase in population density is a good thing for numbers and catch rates, bad for growing the BIGGEST brown trout. This is a fundamental difference in our goals. I for one am fine with higher numbers for the statistical probability of having more trout and less impact by those that keep them, as Georgia has a year round fishing season but only a spring summer stocking season.

You can increase the carrying capacity of trout by decreasing a factor such as negative human interaction. This helps their intrinsic growth rate "r" as well, to allow them to reach their carrying capacity faster. It is literally a mathematical formula.Yes the bows and brooks do have different spawning requirements. As I stated the brown trout have been shown to successfully reproduce, but brown trout still need similar features, they can just tolerate a broader range. To discount the failed reproductive viability of rainbows and brooks within the river as a indication of the reproductive viability of the browns would not make sense. This self sustaining feature of our browns may point to them being fine, but I am assuming that it isn't at its potential and we can help it. If you've been to the Hooch, you would know how silted it is and the limited amount of gravel beds we have.

You mention things that we can't realistically change. As I said this forum has already discussed it. Riparian buffer controls is probably the most significant thing within that list that we can change, but hardly likely. The Dam is for hydroelectricity power and not the health of brown trout. This won't change. Not sticking is also something that is not likely to change. Adding structure would be reasonable but we have high releases that need to be taken in consideration. My proposition of decreasing pollutants seems most reasonable as this not only benefit the trout but also benefits the interests of humans. Selfish, but when has any implementation or money been thrown by those in the upper echelons to solely help trout vitality.

Yes I realize you were talking about the forage base and nutrient base not the reproductive fertility of the brown trout. Again, I already acknowledged this in my previous post.

Never in my post did I correlate large number of small fish as a sign of poor reproductive health. I agreed they show indeterminate growth. I stated that the lack of rainbows or brooks being able to self sustain in the river indicates (not proves as you seem to assume that I am stating all these things with certainty and a complete disregard or knowledge of other factors) that the brown trout reproductive viability is not at its optimal level.

Overall, I am not discounting your points or arguments. Neither of us can be proven right as we both are stating points that need research to prove the conditions and therefore arguments we are making. I am conveying the mathematical and ecological knowledge that I had the opportunity of learning, and pairing that with my observations and knowledge of our specific tailwater. You are essentially doing the same. Great discussion, and I am sure others appreciate the info, but you can send me a PM so that we can not expand an already lengthy post and come to a conclusion, even if it is to agree to disagree.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sighter is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-17, 07:25 PM   #39
Dylar
Native
 
Dylar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Posts: 172
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleRainbow View Post
Dylar, well thanks for clearing that up that you meant within the park boundaries, I already mentioned that it was a clear misunderstanding. You are assuming that the brown trout Hooch are at their optimal carrying capacity currently. This is unrealistic in any ecosystem. I am trying to increase their REALIZED carrying capacity.
Well, sure, ecosystems that are operating right to the edge of carrying capacity are, in fact, unhealthy and ripe for a crash. Doesn't change that this is a hard tipping point, and not one we're really able to impact much one way or another. From a management standpoint, if the goal is to increase numbers of larger trout, it's a whole hell of a lot easier to manage by reducing competition than it is by magically increasing the numbers of baitfish or bugs.

Quote:
Carrying capacity literally has biomass, interactions with species such as competition, and other factors within its equation. Also, you are also assuming that the forage of our river is at its maximum capacity. It most likely is not and if that is the case then it could support more trout. It is an ecological fact that human interaction is probably the biggest factor on any species, especially since this is a catch and keep fishery and located within a metropolitan area where all sorts of things go into our rivers.
Recreational angling has been shown time and time again to have a fairly limited impact on fish populations in most circumstances. Human induced water quality degradation and habitat destruction, on the other hand, is the biggest single issue threatening freshwater fisheries globally. For that reason, the biggest bang for your regulatory/management buck is almost always going to be in protecting and improving water quality. Keeping the silt and pollutants out, keeping the canopy over tributaries to keep them from adversely impacting temps in the main river. Making sure that necessary new infrastructure is constructed so that runoff doesn't go straight from the 95 degree asphalt to the river during the summer. It's not sexy like bioengineering a better trout egg or something, but it's the kind of proven formula for conserving and improving a cold water fishery. It doesn't require technical breakthroughs or huge economic investments. It just requires a modicum of political will.

Quote:
Notably the sewage leaks that seem to arise every 3 years or so.
LOL, depending on the scale of the leaks, there's a reasonable possibility that all they're doing is pumping a little juice into the system. Same thing with the effluent from hatchery outflows, which are often notorious for the concentrations of nice to huge fish that they often generate immediately downstream. Literally the best trout stream I've ever fished in my life is lined for twenty miles with straight pipes carrying raw sewage straight from houses to the creek. You either avoid the pipes entirely or learn to recognize the telltale rumble of a flush coming down the line. Many of the larger fish hold directly below sewage pipes. Trout are not noble creatures, and don't let some wild eyed mystic tell you otherwise.

Quote:
This increase in population density is a good thing for numbers and catch rates, bad for growing the BIGGEST brown trout. This is a fundamental difference in our goals.
I mean, I'll cop to preferring a fishery managed for catchable numbers of large trout over one managed for large numbers of catchable trout. In a productive and viable fishery, managing for big fish should still mean reasonable numbers of fish over all, as well, but the management strategies pursued to maximize population densities and especially angler catch rates (which aren't intrinsically related, for all that management agencies seem to conflate the two) make it unlikely that many fish will grow to impressive proportions. I just think managing for big fish is a much more beneficial to the fishery as a whole than managing for numbers (particularly when stocking is treated as a management tool).

That said, I was originally responding Browniez, who was speculating about strategies specifically aimed at managing the fishery to produce larger browns. I get that you would prefer the pursuit of other management goals, but the question raised, implicitly, wasn't, "How do we get more browns in the Hooch?". The question was, "How do we get bigger browns in the Hooch?".


Quote:
I for one am fine with higher numbers for the statistical probability of having more trout and less impact by those that keep them, as Georgia has a year round fishing season but only a spring summer stocking season.
I know you have a fall delayed harvest season; are those fish stocked in the summer or are there DH specific stockings in the fall, like NCWRC does in October and November up here?

In any event, Tennessee and South Carolina close or have closed in the past the fishing season in key spawning habitat to protect fish during the spawn. Is that done to protect the brown trout spawn in the tailwater fishery? If not, it's the kind of simple regulatory change (say closing the main spawning grounds to fishing Oct-Mar) that would both benefit larger fish (keeping them from being hammered and repeatedly stressed during the spawn when they're at their most vulnerable) and the "reproductive viability" of the population as a whole (by not stressing the breeding fish during the spawn, forcing them to prematurely drop milt or eggs, and by helping the breeders survive season to season).

Quote:
You can increase the carrying capacity of trout by decreasing a factor such as negative human interaction.
You say that, but when offered proven ways to eliminate or mitigate negative human interactions (rigorous enforcement of riparian buffer controls, for instance) you said, "Oh, that can't be done." So, if you can't (or won't) do anything to impose better controls on "negative human interactions" to improve the quality of the habitat, you're kind of left with reducing competition as your only practical option

Quote:
Yes the bows and brooks do have different spawning requirements. As I stated the brown trout have been shown to successfully reproduce, but brown trout still need similar features, they can just tolerate a broader range.
I think you overestimate the similarity of their respective requirements, or at least underestimate the impact of seemingly small differences where the rubber meets the road. When you get right down to it, these fish aren't really that closely related; it's a big assumption to make that they're all basically proxies for one another. Do you have any direct evidence for poor reproductive outcomes for the wild brown trout in the Hooch or is this more in the nature of speculation?

Quote:
You mention things that we can't realistically change. As I said this forum has already discussed it. Riparian buffer controls is probably the most significant thing within that list that we can change, but hardly likely.
This is purely a matter of political will, which means it can be done.

Quote:
The Dam is for hydroelectricity power and not the health of brown trout.
Just off the top of my head, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia have over the years required changes to be made to powerhouses or the draws for hydro dams for the benefit of tailwater trout fisheries. It can be done. It has been done. Minimum flow requirements, too.

Quote:
Not sticking is also something that is not likely to change.
Again, purely a matter of political will. I get the inertia. I get the cultural challenges. It's still just a matter of will.

Quote:
Adding structure would be reasonable but we have high releases that need to be taken in consideration.
So take them into consideration. That's an engineering problem, and not a particularly severe one. Man, what good is a formula if the solutions it uncovers for you are all too hard?

Quote:
My proposition of decreasing pollutants seems most reasonable as this not only benefit the trout but also benefits the interests of humans. Selfish, but when has any implementation or money been thrown by those in the upper echelons to solely help trout vitality.
How are you going to go about reducing pollutants if it's impossible to limit development in the watershed and impossible to protect its riparian buffer zones? "Decreasing pollutants" is an end; it's not a means. The means to that end are all the things you just said can't be done. So, how do you get there from here?
Dylar is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-30-17, 07:47 PM   #40
Sighter
NGTO Instagram Controller
 
Sighter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Gwinnett County
Posts: 626
Default

Dylar I'll skip the nitty gritty things and avoid the small counter arguments I have as I've stated most of the things I wanted to convey. We are in agreement on the topic and have slightly differing views on how they should be implemented. One small point is that I am well aquatinted with how catch rates and number of fish caught are not extremely related, but it does increase, ideally, the statistical probability of doing so.

All of those solutions are right things to do, but to get them implemented is hard as you and I both know. Pollution is in the interest of both trout and humans as the Hooch tailwater provides water to much of the metropolitan area, and even more so as it goes downriver. This is the best chance of getting anything done by those in charge. Reducing construction and other means however, would face push back and there's no human benefit in the eyes of those up top. The Hooch brings in revenue, but not enough to put it on the radar specifically for those in charge. The states you mention are all more known as a fishing destination and that can explain the added funds as they have a benefit to the people and businesses in those areas. Political will is something that is needed, but it was the matter of the easiest method we could pass that would help the trout that I was highlighting. Reducing sewage and spills is a method to reduce pollution and to say it has no effect on trout or has a marginal effect on trout doesn't seem right.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sighter is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


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 12:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vB.Sponsors
Copyright 2010 - North Georgia Trout Online - All Rights Reserved