Driftless Trout Anglers

Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

3 Pages123>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Gurth  
#1 Posted : Friday, March 8, 2019 7:49:19 PM(UTC)
Gurth
Rank: Dragon Fly

Joined: 11/7/2016(UTC)
Posts: 1,335
Man
Location: Madison

Thanks: 126 times
Was thanked: 161 time(s) in 127 post(s)
Found this to be an interesting read…


https://www.hatchmag.com...-part-i-rotenone/7714785


I know some have touched on the idea of restoring brook trout only streams here in Wisconsin.

I'm still not on board with that in most cases, but I see the benefits of the practice in restoring some of these unique and small populations of trout and other fish to their native ranges.

If there is an imperiled population of heritage brookies in a fragile spot here in Wisconsin that are worth protecting… I could get behind that.

Me wanting to catch larger brook trout isn't a good enough reason to eradicate all of the fish in a particular waterway though. I'll never be on board with that. Killing a stream to stock brookies that aren't suited to survive into the next century would seem like a waste.

I guess in places where brookies still exist and are in competition, a discussion would be valid on the best way to give them a boost.

I recently posted about a local stream where I'm catching brook trout further down each season and in better numbers and size and called my findings anecdotal. Well they aren't.

From a DNR biologist who I reported it to:

"That system seems to be improving in regards to supporting brook trout. REDACTED (retired biologist) did some research on the watershed and streams and found that the land conservation practices have improved over time and the overall temps and baseflow of those streams have improved as well. I have talked with a couple other anglers that have seen an increase in brook trout catches particularly in REDACTED. Hopefully that trend will continue."


The boost of giving them conditions that they like more than browns do seems like a better option and likely more successful long term – more shade as well as better land use practices.

In the stream that I'm referencing above (not too far from Mad), there are browns present and big ones at that, but there is a transitional zone and above that, the browns become quite rare even though the stream "looks" superficially the same. I'm sure it's a temp drop. Duh. Right?

Big places down here though like the Blue, Green, BEC, Sugar, Willow etc, etc aren't ever again going to be suitable for brook trout. Even in their shady stretches.

I have stated before and realize that the discussion is different the further north one lives.

We'd have very few trout options down here without brown trout or if we had to rely solely on brook trout. Period. Without question.

Plus… I prefer brown trout. There… I said it. Flapper

My unanswered question about rotenone would be whether it's humane or not.


“Harvest eaters... release trophies.” -Gurth
Private correspondence at: jkschind "at" tds.net
Sponsor
shebs  
#2 Posted : Friday, March 8, 2019 10:29:37 PM(UTC)
shebs
Rank: Dragon Fly

Joined: 5/12/2014(UTC)
Posts: 1,060
Location: Mpls

Thanks: 17 times
Was thanked: 56 time(s) in 46 post(s)
I don't know of anyone advocating for the elimination of browns in areas where brookies would struggle to survive. In areas with better conditions, particularly where there is a barrier to prevent re-colonization of browns, there is a much stronger case.
Land use improvements are certainly a better alternative than wholesale slaughter and re-stocking, but there are also places where that's simply not enough.
As far as humane...you put a hook in them, and temporarily asphyxiate them for pleasure. Get real Razz
A bad day of fishing is better than a good day of work. ~Author Unknown
Modern Translation, with respect for the Notorious B.I.G. : "Fuck Money, Get Fishes"
Gurth  
#3 Posted : Saturday, March 9, 2019 1:13:25 AM(UTC)
Gurth
Rank: Dragon Fly

Joined: 11/7/2016(UTC)
Posts: 1,335
Man
Location: Madison

Thanks: 126 times
Was thanked: 161 time(s) in 127 post(s)
Haha. Touché.

That doesn’t mean that everything that I could do to a fish would be the same or okay though.

I could pull off one fin at a time or gouge out their eyes or pull their gillls out with pliers. Those would be worse than catch and release.

I think it’s a valid question. Generally speaking, death by poison is a bad way to go for animals.

From what i gathered, rotenone causes the cells in the gills to break down and eventually suffocates them. What I couldn’t find is how rapidly this happens.

Still found the article to be interesting and it made me reconsider my position on these practices. I evolved a bit. Haha.

“Harvest eaters... release trophies.” -Gurth
Private correspondence at: jkschind "at" tds.net
shebs  
#4 Posted : Saturday, March 9, 2019 1:33:59 AM(UTC)
shebs
Rank: Dragon Fly

Joined: 5/12/2014(UTC)
Posts: 1,060
Location: Mpls

Thanks: 17 times
Was thanked: 56 time(s) in 46 post(s)
I'm no biochemist, but I think rotenone prevents the gills from uptaking oxygen, so it's fairly quick asphyxiation. Not much different than throwing a fish on the ice or bank. It's really not very toxic to anything that doesn't have gills, which is why it's useful for aquatic restoration. Toxicity levels are crazy high for ingestion exposure (as in you'd have to eat a bag full of rotenone pellets for it to kill you) and it dissipates very quickly, so there are minimal effects on anything that doesn't breathe the water.
Rotenone might be the most humane way to kill a fish, short of the instant death that comes from a bonk with Sasquatch's priest.

Edited by user Saturday, March 9, 2019 1:56:54 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

A bad day of fishing is better than a good day of work. ~Author Unknown
Modern Translation, with respect for the Notorious B.I.G. : "Fuck Money, Get Fishes"
NBrevitz  
#5 Posted : Saturday, March 9, 2019 2:39:40 AM(UTC)
NBrevitz
Rank: Super Fly

Joined: 3/16/2013(UTC)
Posts: 1,522
Man
Location: Lake Elmo, Mn

Thanks: 56 times
Was thanked: 68 time(s) in 55 post(s)
I think if the prognosis for Brookies looks good, we should help them out by removing their invasive competition. If they’d struggle at best and Browns are already present? Then no need to rotenone.

I just hate hate hate seeing Browns on what could still be ideal Brookie water. Drives me up the wall

Gurth, get your hands on a 16 and you’ll understand.
"I fish because I love to: Because only in the woods can I find solitude without loneliness."
Gurth  
#6 Posted : Saturday, March 9, 2019 4:55:57 AM(UTC)
Gurth
Rank: Dragon Fly

Joined: 11/7/2016(UTC)
Posts: 1,335
Man
Location: Madison

Thanks: 126 times
Was thanked: 161 time(s) in 127 post(s)
Originally Posted by: NBrevitz Go to Quoted Post


I just hate hate hate seeing Browns on what could still be ideal Brookie water. Drives me up the wall

Gurth, get your hands on a 16 and you’ll understand.


Well... it just doesn’t seem like that will ever happen for me. If only I knew someone who knows where such fish might dwell. Laugh

Truth told I enjoy variety. It’s incredible to be able to spend a morning chasing brookies and the afternoon on big water going after browns. My favorite streams are mixed waters where each are present.

The variety of waters and environments we have is incredible and I often ask myself (figuratively) what experience I want on any given day. What an incredible luxury.

“Harvest eaters... release trophies.” -Gurth
Private correspondence at: jkschind "at" tds.net
rschmidt  
#7 Posted : Saturday, March 9, 2019 9:07:29 AM(UTC)
rschmidt
Rank: Stone Fly

Joined: 1/16/2015(UTC)
Posts: 584
Location: West WI

Thanks: 36 times
Was thanked: 61 time(s) in 50 post(s)
Pick up a copy of NY Times best seller and Pulitzer finalist, The Death and Life of the Great Lakes by Dan Egan. It's fascinating!

It leaves me certain that any engineered rotenone(ing) will have unintended and unanticipated consequences that will fudge things up worse than global warming or the absence of brook trout.

The book above is well written, entertaining and thought provoking! Perfect for this bullshit weather. hahaha

Ron
NBrevitz  
#8 Posted : Saturday, March 9, 2019 5:26:42 PM(UTC)
NBrevitz
Rank: Super Fly

Joined: 3/16/2013(UTC)
Posts: 1,522
Man
Location: Lake Elmo, Mn

Thanks: 56 times
Was thanked: 68 time(s) in 55 post(s)
Originally Posted by: Gurth Go to Quoted Post


Well... it just doesn’t seem like that will ever happen for me. If only I knew someone who knows where such fish might dwell. Laugh


The variety of waters and environments we have is incredible and I often ask myself (figuratively) what experience I want on any given day. What an incredible luxury.



Hey I mean if you take 3 hours out of your trip in June, I can pretty much guarantee you a bunch of 15s with a shot at a 20... About 40 min north of your jump off point.

And yes I couldn’t agree more. As one who enjoys driving, the options within a 5 hour radius of my house are just ridiculous. I just prefer driving 7 hours NE, I’m getting obsessed...😂
"I fish because I love to: Because only in the woods can I find solitude without loneliness."
MN Driftless  
#9 Posted : Monday, March 11, 2019 10:47:12 AM(UTC)
MN Driftless
Rank: Midge

Joined: 5/15/2016(UTC)
Posts: 35
Man
United States
Location: The Driftless

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 3 post(s)
I think it's an intriguing idea of using rotenone on Driftless streams with the idea of protecting native brookies. To the best of my knowledge there is no actual DNA sample of native fish; therefore, the heritage strain is what has taken its place and now is called "native."

Rotenone is used out West, commonly to eliminate trout like the non-native brookies and restore populations of cutthroat, with pretty good success.

I would think that a weir of some kind would be needed if this same approach was to be taken here in the Midwest. That and perhaps some stream specific protective measures for catch and release.
weiliwen  
#10 Posted : Monday, March 11, 2019 3:25:15 PM(UTC)
weiliwen
Rank: May Fly

Joined: 4/16/2014(UTC)
Posts: 474
Man
United States
Location: Madison, Wisconsin during the week and Lincolnshire, Illinois on weekends.

Thanks: 114 times
Was thanked: 45 time(s) in 39 post(s)
Back in my home state of Oregon is a large (3,000 acres) mountain lake called Diamond Lake. The nature of the lake meant that it historically produced prodigious amounts of good sized trout - shallow, great insect populations. The outlet stream disappears into volcanic tubes etc; and nobody knows where it exits. There were no native trout or char in the lake before it was stocked

Somebody started dumping some sort of shiner called a Tui Chub, used as live bait for big trout, into the lake, and over time, they over-ran the lake. Eventually, it was decided to rotenone the lake. Nearly 100 MILLION of the now-dead Tui Chub were netted up and removed from the lake. Insect life returned and the lake was stocked. Although 10-lb trout used to be the norm before the trash fish arrived, the lake has never returned to that level, although it's again a popular fishery.

Seems to me that many Driftless streams have browns up to a certain point, and brookies only above that. I'm sure that's not absolute, but I could imagine putting in the rotenone there, killing all fish below, and letting the brookies above there re-populate the lower stretches. Then they'd be, if not native, at least the same brookies that are there now.
Bob Williams, "Weiliwen"
Users browsing this topic
Similar Topics
Rotenone in a lake down the street from my house. (Environmental & Conservation News)
by Trout_Patzer 11/19/2010 3:37:27 PM(UTC)
3 Pages123>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2019, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.546 seconds.