Posts: 123
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation:
0
Years ago they used to have kamloops rainbows in the gorge, 26 lb state record. Many world records have come from this strain in montana. I understand they planted them somewhere here in Utah in hopes of creating a trophy lake, cant remember where they put them. I wonder why they dont restock that strain in the gorge and or other places for that matter. Beautiful and big fish. Would be fun to be able to fish for 20+ lb rainbows without traveling a long way. Any thoughts.
[signature]
Posts: 837
Threads: 1
Joined: Feb 2006
Reputation:
0
I believe they put them in mantua but I could be wrong.
My grandpa used to catch monster kamloops rainbows at lake pend oreille in northern Idaho back in the 60's and 70's
[signature]
Posts: 32,645
Threads: 384
Joined: Feb 2002
Reputation:
33
I did a search and this is what I came up with, Mantua and Flaming Gorge. Tube Dude was just talking about Kamloops in Mantua last week. Doesn't sound like they are still in there but here is a [url "http://www.bigfishtackle.com/cgi-bin/gforum/gforum.cgi?do=search_results&search_forum=forum_58&search_string=Kamloops+Rainbow+&search_type=AND&search_fields=sb&search_time=&search_user_username=&sb=score&mh=25"]link to the search[/url] I did. WH2
[signature]
Posts: 1,181
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2003
Reputation:
0
Have seen no kamloops in Mantua for several years.....they probably all died off by now with the warm water in summer. None of the bows there have the adipose fin clip that they marked the kamloops with.
[signature]
Posts: 468
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation:
0
Quote straight from the 08 Utah Fishing Guide:
"Whiterocks will produce about 150,000 pounds of fish in 2008. Fish from the Whiterocks are placed in waters in the Uinta Basin, on the south slope on the Uinta Mountains and in Strawberry Reservoir.
Whiterocks will also be a future home for Kamloops Rainbow Trout. The eggs from these fish will be used to raise Kamloops rainbows for Flaming Gorge Reservoir."
Those big Kamloops rainbows are coming back!
[signature]
Posts: 123
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2007
Reputation:
0
I just read that in the proclamation, that will be awesome!
[signature]
Posts: 162
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation:
0
If this is true and they plant some in strawberry, we could have some hugh fish in a few years. As any they put in the berry will be sterile and grow a lot faster
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
Kamloops. This subject just continues to come up year, after year, after year....
Growing big fish is typically a product of right environment -- NOT STRAIN!
In most areas, there is some other bottleneck that limits potential fish growth long before the strain of fish limits growth. In most cases, strain of rainbow trout hasn't made any difference at all in size of fish for Utah reservoirs. It's all about the environment. Flaming Gorge has changed over the years. Putting Kamloops back in place of the current strain of rainbows most likely will not result in larger sized rainbows.
Someone mentioned putting them in Strawberry -- what would change? Fishermen harvest rainbow trout (or cutthroat harvest rainbow trout...) so fast from Strawberry that the rainbows never have a chance of growing large. A different strain of rainbow trout (kamloops) won't change this. The limiting factor is NOT strain.
Fix the correct bottleneck to improve size of rainbow trout. The current limiting factors are not strain. Changing the wrong factor doesn't change the bottleneck.
[signature]
Posts: 15
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation:
0
Actually, biological studies have showed that the Kamloops strain lives twice as long as a generic rainbow, and their growth rate is slightly faster than the generic rainbow. I believe its 1-2 inches a year faster. The largest factor that contributes to size is oxygen. Lots of oxygen means BIG fish. I use to fish mantua just right before the kamloops were stocked and they had very large rainbows. It was because of all the plant life that produced so much oxygen and cover. If I remember right that was one of the contributing factors as to why the DWR decided to put Kamloops there. Then perch were illegaly introduced shortly after and the rainbows struggled. Personally I can't remember the last time someone caught a few small rainbows from strawberry. Normally they are large, just not very many rainbows there.
PBH, Have you ever caught a Kamloop? I have caught several 18"+ Kamloops and they fight a heck of a lot harder than generic rainbows, and Strawberry Cuts feel like a dumb wet towel when you reel them in. I hope they stock Kamloops in Strawberry. It would be awesome flyfishing.
[signature]
Posts: 15
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation:
0
Bluefishon, there are some private lakes near Duchesne that have Kamloops.
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
Br0wntrout -- you brought up a couple things that bring out my point.
"[font "Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"][black][size 1]The largest factor that contributes to size is oxygen."
[/size][/black][/font]
While I don't believe this, it still shows that strain isn't the limiting factor in size. You are saying that oxygen is the limiting factor. If levels of oxygen aren't sufficient to produce a 20" fish, then why would strain make a difference?
Generic rainbows. What's a generic rainbow?
Utah uses many different types of rainbows, from Fishlake / Desmet, to Sand Creek's. They all have different qualities which make them better suited to the environment they are in. Sand Creek's spawn at a different time of year than Desmet, which makes them a better fit for Minersville Reservoir. Kamloops would be a terrible fit in Minersville because of spawning time of year. They'd never make it past 8" because bird predation would wipe them out.
With Strawberry, again, how would Kamloops perform any different than the current strain of rainbow? Before thinking that Kamloops would perform better, don't we need to identify what is currently preventing the current strain from growing larger than they currently are? Same with Flaming Gorge.
So, for anyone wanting the DWR to change rainbow trout strain in any reservoir, let's identify a couple things:
1. What is keeping the current strain from growing larger?
2. What are the benefits (why?) of using the current strain?
3. Are the limiting factors something that can be changed?
Br0wntrout: you first. What are you answers to 1-3?
[font "Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"][black][size 1]
[/size][/black][/font]
[signature]
Posts: 468
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation:
0
Here are a few articles regarding the kamloops rainbow trout:
[url "http://www.rmgameandfish.com/fishing/trout-fishing/rm_aa064504a/"]http://www.rmgameandfish.com/...ishing/rm_aa064504a/[/url]
[url "http://www.gofishbc.com/tips_articles/kamloops.htm"]http://www.gofishbc.com/...rticles/kamloops.htm[/url]
Basically, there is alot of speculation about the fish. Is it just a regular rainbow trout, or is it a subspecies? One thing is certain-
Many of the records around North America for rainbow trout indeed come from populations of so the called Kamloops rainbows. There seems to be something in them that triggers physical differences to develop when placed in certain environments.
The native Kamloops have developed a close relationship with Kokanee salmon. They get big mainly because they eat all the small kokes. They also are better able to attain their greater size and fish-eating habits when placed in deep, clean, cool bodies of water(but what trout isn't?). Hence the decision to place them in the Gorge. I don't understand how they'd compete with the Lakers. Right now the DWR is encouraging people to keep all the small Lake Trout they catch in the Gorge because they are worried that eventually they'll cause the Kokanee population to bust. Why add another fish that will need to prey on the Kokes to get the desired affect?
It was once found to be a separate species. Native Kamloops bows had scale, gill, and head size differences when compared to other rainbow trout, not to mention were larger in size. But, when placed in streams or smaller bodies of water the Kamloops bows and regular rainbows were identical. At any rate, the development of the Kamloops bows seems dependant on specific environmental factors. If those factors are not present, they are just normal bows that mainly eat bugs. But when put in the proper conditions, they will outgrow and vary slightly from normal bows.
One thing I have read which may explain the differences, is that your average run-of-the mill hatchery rainbow is genetically not as pure as the Kamloops. A study done in Lake Superior points to this. Perhaps the only reason the Kamloops does better is that it is a rainbow trout that is simply a more pure and unadulterated version that hasn't been bastardized.
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
Ryan -- thank you for the links. One of my longstanding issues with Kamloops rainbows is that they are not a distinct (seperate) strain of rainbow trout, they are simply the Gerard strain.
both articles point out that environmental conditions are what makes the Kamloops grow large. Put in the right environment, they will get big, but so will other strains.
Fix the bottleneck, and the fish (no matter the strain) will grow big. Kamloops rainbows are simply a fish with a rich history of fiction.
[signature]
Posts: 468
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation:
0
I am beginning to think that on top of the environmental factors, Kamloops are genetically better than regular hatchery rainbows. While they are the same species, they might just be in better shape for growing faster and healthier. This is no different than champion horses or dogs which are bigger and stronger than others. The Kamloops come from a better line.
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
Let's just dispell this myth right now...
from: [url "http://www.aquahabitat.com/myths.html"]http://www.aquahabitat.com/myths.html[/url]
"
[font "arial, helvetica"]There are a few myths that are so ingrained that they approach legend status. One of the best examples of this is the "Kamloops" trout. The history of this discussion could span several pages. For now, we will condense the story. Kamloops is actually a small city in the interior of British Columbia. There are numerous small lakes in the area that were barren of fish before the mid 1800s. Early pioneers stocked trout into these lakes and ponds from surrounding waters. The first generations of these fish grew to Herculean proportions. Eighteen to twenty pound fish were reported from legendary lakes such as Paul Lake. Now that's a huge rainbow trout for any size pond! After the standing stock of prey species was trimmed down by the first fish, the size of the "Kamloops" trout dwindled to the size of the rest of their rainbow trout cousins. The analogy here is like the first starving man to the banquet hall. There is an abundance of food, but the stove can only cook so much. [/font]
[font "arial, helvetica"]There actually are a couple stocks of rainbow trout in the interior of British Columbia that deserve the status of the Kamloops name, however these fish are rare. The Gerrard stock of rainbow trout which reside in Kootenay Lake are probably the most well known of these fish. They evolved in deep lakes of glacial origin with cold, clear water and kokanee as their prey species. These fish can grow to huge sizes: over 30 pounds in places such as such as Kootenay Lake in B.C. and Lake Pend Oreille,Idaho. Does this sound like your pond??? If this isn't exactly an accurate description of your pond, then Gerrards are not the stock of trout for you. [/font]
[font "arial, helvetica"]"But the guy at the hatchery told me my fish are Kamloops!" If that's what brand he wants to call them then they are. The Kamloops name may be the most abused name in trout history. Even if these fish were of a stock like the Gerrard stock, they have been in hatcheries for so many generations that they have lost their potential for top performance in a wild environment like your pond. If the "Kamloops" in your local hatchery are spawning at two and three years of age, then they are the same fish as most all hatchery stocks of trout. There are a few stocks of trout from hatcheries that will perform better for your local waters. Where you are located will dictate which of these stocks is best for your situation. Be careful about being sold on the latest super trout developed in a hatchery. These fish were actually developed FOR the hatchery. If they do well in a hatchery, chances are they won't do as well in the wild. There is an entirely different set of traits that allow fish to perform in the wild instead of a hatchery. [/font]
[font "arial, helvetica"]Now before you go beating down the door of your local trout hatchery, think for a moment. The hatchery owner probably bought these fish eggs from someone else. He doesn't have a high tech genetics lab to figure out the exact origins of the stock of trout he is selling. His customers probably pleaded with him to stock Kamloops trout in the first place. The suppliers are just giving the public what they asked for. [/font]
[font "arial, helvetica"]"But I have heard of huge steelhead coming from Kamloops trout". "Huge" is a relative term. There are some very large steelhead that inhabit rivers in Northern British Columbia. Are your Kamloops coming from these genetic stocks? In a word, no! A client came to us recently and told us there were some very large Kamloops steelhead somewhere on the east coast. He said these fish got up to eight pounds. We pointed out that if those fish would have been winter steelhead stocks then they would be over twelve pounds in size. Rainbow trout of the interior of British Columbia and the Pacific Northwest are of the redband group ( Oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri ). They are summer run steelhead. Winter run steelhead are coastal rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus ) that spend an additional six months at sea, which allows them to attain larger sizes. An eight pound steelhead is a nice fish in most peoples' experience, so you can see how the myths perpetuate."[/font]
From: [url "http://www.canadian-sportfishing.com/tips_view.php?id=53"]http://www.canadian-sportfishing.com/tips_view.php?id=53[/url]
"The famous Kamloops, as its name suggests, is found in the lakes around Kamloops, B.C. Most do not exceed 5 to 7 pounds."
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
if you are going to click and read any of the posted links, click on this one. It contains NO NEGATIVE information on Kamloops rainbows. It is simply good information concerning rainbow trout in British Columbia -- where Kamloops originated.
[url "http://www.gofishbc.com/docs/2208A06B4B85CFDB.pdf"]http://www.gofishbc.com/docs/2208A06B4B85CFDB.pdf [/url]
[signature]
Posts: 15
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation:
0
[size 1]"[/size]
[size 1]"[/size][font "Verdana,Arial,Helvetica"][black][size 1]The largest factor that contributes to size is oxygen."
[/size][/black][/font]
[size 1]While I don't believe this, it still shows that strain isn't the limiting factor in size. You are saying that oxygen is the limiting factor. If levels of oxygen aren't sufficient to produce a 20" fish, then why would strain make a difference? [/size]
"
I wasn't personally attacking you. I was merely pointing out characteristics of Kamloops. Put a trout in water that has a low oxygen content. What happens? There are multiple studies on this. I suggest you google it. There is no one magic factor thats going to produce a rainbow the size of truck. The "environment" is such a general answer. It includes EVERYTHING. There is no one "bottleneck" thats going to fix everything. Yes your right, Kamloops rainbows are not going to be HUGE. In fact they probably wont even thrive anywhere. Look at the last few places they have been planted in Utah. Pretty much a failure all around.
[size 1]"Kamloops would be a terrible fit in Minersville because of spawning time of year. They'd never make it past 8" because bird predation would wipe them out."[/size]
[size 1][/size]
Wrong. Bird predation would not wipe them out. Whats your reasoning behind this. Its more likely that a comet would strike the reservoir and kill all of the fish before birds could do any kind of damage.
[size 1]1. What is keeping the current strain from growing larger?
2. What are the benefits (why?) of using the current strain?
3. Are the limiting factors something that can be changed[/size]
1. Its the nature of the trout
2. They are cheap to buy
3. Most them we wont be able to change. However, there are things that can be done to optimize each part of the equation. If they optimize the strain then maybe they get an extra inch. (most likely not). Its a continual improvement on each one of the factors. One at a time. The environment is very very difficult to change and expensive. The strain of a fish is easy to change and cheap!
I just like catching hard fighting fish. Kamloops are harder fighting in MY opinion. Thats why I would like them.
[size 1][/size]
I have included a photo of a healthy Kamloop that was caught last fall on a body of water located in Utah. Just a few hours away from Salt Lake.
[size 1][/size]
[size 1][/size]
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
Br0wn -- you know nothing of Minersville, obviously.
Fish stocked in Minersville must be done in the fall and at a particular size. Why? Because migratory cormorants move to Minersville in the spring. If trout are not over 12" by spring, they get eaten. All of them. If 8" trout are stocked in the spring, they get eaten. If 8" trout are stocked in the fall, they grow large enough over the winter to escape predation by cormorants. There are numerous studies on Minersville reservoir to prove this. Current managment strategies on Minersville Reservoir prove this.
You are correct that there is not one single bottleneck limiting growth. There are numerous bottlenecks. However, you MUST identify and manage one bottleneck at a time.
Is it age?
Is it food?
Is it competition?
Can you fix it?
Let's look at age. Many trout only live to be 4-6 years in the wild. What is it that is killing them? Old age? Harvest? something else?
My point? If trout are dying at age 5, and it's not "old age" that's killing them, would it make sense to stock a strain of trout know for it's long life?
Answer: No. Long life isn't the limiting factor.
At Strawberry, the rainbows aren't surviving for more than a year or two. Both angler harvest and predation by other fish are to blame. Would it make sense to stock Kamloops (a longer living, larger growing fish) than the current?
Answer: No. They will be harvested and eaten at the same rate as the current strain.
the former Southern Region Aquatics Manager for the UDWR spent many years experimenting with different strains of rainbow trout in Southern Utah. Attempts at growing larger fish based on strain were always failures. The reason? Strain wasn't the limiting factor in growth.
[signature]
Posts: 15
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation:
0
Interesting, I didn't know that about Minersville. I live in the north so I don't keep up on reservoirs in the south. I find it hard to believe that every trout under 12" is eaten though. Do you have a link to any of the studies. Sounds like good reading.
"[size 1]At Strawberry, the rainbows aren't surviving for more than a year or two."[/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1]I thought they stopped stocking Strawberry with rainbows several years ago? I never said strain was the limiting factor. I agree with you on most of your points. Just relax. [/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1]"the former Southern Region Aquatics Manager for the UDWR spent many years experimenting with different strains of rainbow trout in Southern Utah. Attempts at growing larger fish based on strain were always failures. The reason? Strain wasn't the limiting factor in growth."[/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1]So did he find anything that was successful at growing larger fish? There are so many variables that affect the size and quality of a fish that you will never be able to reduce down to a handful of bottlenecks. It will be HUNDREDS of bottlenecks. So why do you think the Cutthroats get so large in strawberry? Regs or Diet? [/size]
[signature]
Posts: 3,071
Threads: 19
Joined: Jul 2003
Reputation:
11
[reply]
[size 1]There are so many variables that affect the size and quality of a fish that you will never be able to reduce down to a handful of bottlenecks. [/size][/reply]
This is exactly why strain was pushed aside. There were so many other variables controlling growth, and longevity that strain never did factor into the equation. This is exactly why I think fishermen constantly asking for Kamloops in anticipation of larger rainbow trout is ludicrous. There are so many other factors in play that the "kamloops" strain would never come into play.
[reply]
[size 1] So why do you think the Cutthroats get so large in strawberry? Regs or Diet? [/size][/reply]
100% Regulations. No question at all that the Cutts are as large as they are due to regulations. Take away the regulations, and those cutthroat NEVER get to a size large enough to start feeding on prey. Diet wouldn't be a factor without the regulations.
[signature]
|
