Only Use The Good Stuff!

Only Use The Good Stuff!

Thanks for the electrofishing update Andy! I have a couple questions/clarifications if they won’t be included in part 2 of this post. So if there are a lot of 3-5″ around and it should take 2-3 years to reach your 6-10″ “village idiot” status, the growth rate of these size fish is around 2-3″ a year? Do they do any tagging studies to study that? Also, are their observations of size distribution fairly consistent over the total local watershed (Upper vs. Lower Kinni, Rush, Trimbelle etc.)? Looking forward to part 2! Thanks for the info!

Doodlemaster

Thank you for the prompt to put more words on the screen.
First and foremost realize my summaries are a combination of scientific data received from the DNR, discussions with DNR personal and my own semi-scientific(heavy on the semi)observations of a variable laden sport called fly fishing. These observations of fly anglers and the trout they long to quarry, coupled with the complexities of calculating Nature, have lead me to believe that to put forth definitives may only hinder an anglers ability to think dynamically. Don’t get me wrong, there are factors when defined, bring clarity and understanding. But overall there is <strong>change</strong>, every day, every hour, every second. When this factor is understood by the angler, it leaves the door open for better interpretations.

My words are derived from spending time with the nature of the riverine environment. I like science and data, and consider them both helpful tools in my attempt to gain answers to questions relating to the quest that is my passion. However, I believe definitives can be crude and fleeting when it comes to the Nature of fly fishing for trout. Change is. Think now. Don’t trip on that rock.

“They misunderestimated me.” – George Bush, Nov. 6, 2000

Answers to your questions;

Growth rate-

Difficult to define. Variables crazy. Growth rate, as far as I understand, can vary from river to river, from section to section, from year to year, depending on trout population, flows, ground water, land use, water temps, insect populations and a whole host of other factors. As far as I understand this is only kind of “ball park” estimations. Small fish generally grow faster, large fish grow slower. If my math is tragically off(wouldn’t surprise me), please someone jump in and help me out. To my knowledge there are no tagging studies. Remember Wisconsin DNR has been reasonably handcuffed by our environmentally friendly Governor as to spending money on specific studies like this. Research most likely would come from University studies or individual scientists at this time. Check out google: Wisconsin, trout growth rate,  and muddle through the data, see what you find(head spinning).

Observations of size distribution fairly consistent?-

I guess, yes and no. Here are the size categories used in the surveys;

All, YOY, greater than or equal to 7″, 9″, 12″, 14″, 16″, 18″ This remains consistent from year to year. The data I have on the sites sampled is less clear and I don’t want to provide misinformation. The sampler is the only one who knows and I am sure that it is by the scientific book. Mostly I am not clear on all the details of the process

The one thing I do know is that access in some rivers can be the limiting factor. The lower Kinni is a big one where this is access consideration. There is a considerable amount of equipment necessary to do these surveys responsibly. Vehicles, trailers, floatboats, tubs, shockers, generators, bodies are all necessary for the process of collecting data. As you may know, there is little ability to get this equipment down into the canyon. Therefor the center sections of the lower Kinni are not sampled as regularly. Most of the data comes out of the upper Kinni where road and parking lot access make the task possible. Sections on the Lower Kinni that are sampled regularly are the lower Dam and Cty Rd F bridge at the state park. The Rush is an easy mark with all of the easy access points at bridge crossings.

As always, I am open to constructive criticism. No dick head comments