Posts: 1,181
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation:
0
[#800000][size 2]One more time ....... I'm a little perplexed over Kamloops.......According to the answer I received from the scientific community, If you move Kamploops from BC and the Idaho panhandle, like TubeDude said, they cease to be Kamloops? (see attached).[/size][/#800000]
[#800000][size 2][/size][/#800000]
[#800000][size 2]I understand that a Red Band Trout is a whole other species?[/size][/#800000]
[signature]
Posts: 19,235
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
1
[quote WaveWolf] [#800000][size 2]One more time ....... I'm a little perplexed over Kamloops.......According to the answer I received from the scientific community, If you move Kamploops from BC and the Idaho panhandle, like TubeDude said, they cease to be Kamloops? (see attached).[/size][/#800000]
[#800000][size 2][/size][/#800000]
[#800000][size 2]I understand that a Red Band Trout is a whole other species?[/size][/#800000] [/quote]
The answer you received from the scientific community? You mean this:
http://www.bcadventure.com/ronnewman/kamloops.phtml
Did I miss where Tube Dude said they cease to be Kamloops.
That article is a little back and forth don't you think. Once founded they ceased to be? You take Kams from BC and put them in Utah and they are no longer Kams? Little screwy.[crazy][laugh][laugh][laugh]
[signature]
Posts: 2,727
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
0
[quote flygoddess]They survive in a couple of Lakes I fish that have no Koke and get pretty toasty. )[/quote] Hate to keep bringing up dead fish but Falcon Edge Lodge's pond/ lakes are probable one or two thousand feet higher elevation. They also don't get drawn down for irrigation each summer. 20 ft is full pool at Mantua but it's going to be a lot lower late Summer. Fish are highly adaptable but Mantua was a stretch. How deep are the Lodges ponds anyway?
[signature]
Posts: 19,235
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
1
Some pretty shallow, thinking 15' and without aerators which really sucked. Got really mossy.
[signature]
Posts: 1,181
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation:
0
[#500000][size 2]I don't know what I don't know .......... TD said that without the environment and groceries, they are just another trout ........ Isn't that what Dr. Mottley said? ......... I for one would not question either one of them ........ I am certainly not a fisholigist, and I don't play one on the internet ........ Does anyone know of a succesful transplant of Kamloops at the elevation of Strawberry?[/size][/#500000]
[signature]
Posts: 817
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation:
0
[quote WaveWolf][#500000][size 2]I don't know what I don't know .......... TD said that without the environment and groceries, they are just another trout ........ Isn't that what Dr. Mottley said? ......... I for one would not question either one of them ........ I am certainly not a fisholigist, and I don't play one on the internet ........ Does anyone know of a succesful transplant of Kamloops at the elevation of Strawberry?[/size][/#500000] [/quote]
Ok, then the "fake" Kamloops that Idaho DWR puts in their waters sure out fight, outweigh and are bigger than the plain old rainbow in Utah and other parts of Idaho.
[signature]
Posts: 19,235
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
1
TD said that without the environment and groceries, they are just another trout ........ Isn't that what Dr. Mottley said?
Again, I am missing where TD said this. To be honest, it doesn't make much sense. I do agree without groceries there would be NO trout, but I read in that article (which is just one persons writing and really dated) that KAMLOOPS do adapt to their environment.
Here is the rest of your attachment:
He conducted an experiment in which Kamloops Trout eggs from the same fish were hatched and raised in two different environments. One set of eggs were hatched and raised at the normal stream temperatures around Kamloops and the second set were hatched and raised in waters 9 degrees warmer than would normally be expected in the local spawning streams. Those fish raised in the warmer water did not develop the extra scale rows and other physical differences of Salmo Kamloops. He had raised both types of fish from the same batch of eggs and thus proven that Salmo Gairdneri and Salmo Kamloops were indeed the same fish. The differences were environmental rather than genetic.
In subsequent work, Dr. Mottley also found a few other quirks of the Kamloops Trout that are of interest to the angler. The cool spring time and hot summers played a part in the development of these fish. Water temperatures remained cool, like alpine streams, during the critical phases of development, which are the egg, alevin and fry. This cool water was responsible for the physical differences in the fish. During the hot summer the water warmed sufficiently to provide vast quantities of food for the growing trout. This helped to explain the strength, stamina and size differences. Mottley even found that the physical characteristics of the Kamloops Trout changed with the elevation of the lake in which they were raised. Also, attempts to stock Kamloops Trout in other locations have all met with failure unless the environmental conditions are virtually the same as in southern British Columbia.
Shortly after Dr. Mottleys work was confirmed the scientific community removed Salmo Kamloops from its official registry of fish species. Officially the Kamloops Trout ceased to exist. And yet those fish with that extra strength and stamina, those extra rows of scales, the fin and camouflage spot differences and larger size are still in the lakes of south central British Columbia. So in answer to our original question, "YES" there is a Kamloops Trout that is distinct and different from other Rainbow Trout in terms of its fighting ability and physical characteristics. But "NO" it is not genetically different from the more familiar Rainbow Trout. It is a product of the local environment and cannot be exported.
Anyway, enough of that, like the old saying you can wish in one hand and --------in the other .....so, on...LOL
[signature]
Posts: 4,630
Threads: 2
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation:
0
I'm working out of state-84 hrs + don't have time to read the entire post so forgive me but I read the 'third' page. Time and time again I read posts that go off tilt but this one is a good one. Never read anything about tiger trout in Strawberry [laugh] but tiger muskies were brought up. One thing that really struck me was the thought of introduction of TM's to DC and the 'nelle. DC is a toilet bowl (often some nice 'eyes though, I will admit that), the bass are stunted, perch are far and few between (for now), rainbows are stocked yearly by the thousands for eats, sunfish-bluegill are tiny, carp are very numerous-like a clear water UL, oh! I forgot white bass. TM's in DC would not bother me at all. It's already a melting pot of disaster. Jordanelle is a different story. Yes, there are chubs in Jordanelle but much like Starvation they are not a 'trash fish', they are a forage species that the predatory species feed on. Finding a young of the year chub in Jordanelle is not very common, there are plenty of 12-13 year old class chubs that are great for makin' babies but they get eaten up by the bass and perch and cutts and browns...and walleye [mad].
All hypothetical of course but I don't see TM's in the 'nelle a good idea. Despite controlling the numbers that are stocked you would introduce another predator to the top of the food chain.
[signature]
Posts: 815
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation:
0
[quote riverdog]Fish are highly adaptable but Mantua was a stretch.[/quote]]
Agree 100%.... How many BC lakes with Kams also have LMB and Bluegills??
[signature]
Posts: 2,501
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation:
1
RE"[#800000][size 2]I understand that a Red Band Trout is a whole other species?[/size][/#800000] "
The rainbow trout species (Onchorhynchus mykiss) has 4 main subspecies.
1. The coastal rainbow trout (O.m.irideus)
2. The redband trout.
3. The Kern river basin trout, including the golden trout (O.m.aguabonita) and others.
4. Several closely related Mexican subspecies.
The redband trout is further divided into 3 subgroupings.
1. The redband trout of the Northern Great basin, plus the Klamath lake basin of Oregon. (O.m.newberryi)
2. The redband trout of the Northern Sacramento river basin. (O.m.stonei)
3. The redband trout of the mid and upper Columbia and Fraser river basins which includes the Kamloops trout. (O.m.gairdneri)
The redbands are not considered a separate species, and suprisingly a "kamloops" is a redband trout!
Both Coastal rainbows and redbands have Anadromous forms. (or steelhead if you will)
The "Kamloops" trout is a variety of redband that is adapted for life in large lakes of the upper Columbia and Fraser river basins. These lake adapted trout often eat kokanees and reach sexual maturity at a later age. 4-6 years as opposed to 2-3 yrs.
[#800000][size 2]If you move Kamploops from BC and the Idaho panhandle, like TubeDude said, they cease to be Kamloops? (see attached).[/size][/#800000]
No.
Most Kamloops are not known for extraordinary size. However one life history strain from Kootenay lake (called the Gerrard strain) is known to achieve greater size under ideal conditions. These were the fish put into Lake Pend Orielle in Idaho and were initially huge in size until the kokes were eaten out. Generally though, the kamloops trout will grow to the size the available groceries allow, just like other strains.
Clear as mud?
Source of above is the book "Trout and Salmon of North America" by R. Behnke.
[signature]
Posts: 19,235
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
1
[quote Weekend_Warrior][quote riverdog]Fish are highly adaptable but Mantua was a stretch.[/quote]]
Agree 100%.... How many BC lakes with Kams also have LMB and Bluegills??[/quote]
Back when they decided to plant the Kams, I was catching 24" and 26" Rainbow out of Mantua....that is why I saw that this could work.
But that whole lake has changed since. Where are they now? What about the Perch, where did they come from?
[signature]
Posts: 58
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation:
0
You were catching the 24" and 26" rainbow before the bucket biologists put in the perch and after they put in the perch the DWR said the Kamloops experiment was dead, if you all remember, because of the perch. Mantua had already proved it could grow big trout, but trout can't compete well with many other species such as perch. It becomes too many mouths for the groceries, something that seems too difficult for the bucket biologists to understand.
[signature]
Posts: 1,181
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
Reputation:
0
[#804000][size 2]Works for me![/size][/#804000]
[#804000][size 2][/size][/#804000]
[#804000][size 2][/size][/#804000]
[signature]
Posts: 1,191
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation:
0
Not that it really matters but I just read this thread and saw that Falcons Ledge was discussed. The ponds do get lower in the fall and winter. It obviously always depends on water rights and the amount of water. It does get shut off though. I have seen the ponds pretty low as the season ends. I was out there last month and everything seemed to be doing just fine.
FG The moss hasn't been all that bad. In the past few years they have also installed a couple more aerators. And of coarse the one pond with a waterfall that keeps an opening almost all winter long.
I think a better example of the rainbows in ponds being able to survive are the ones at Six Lakes. The fish at Falcons are almost pets in a way. The ponds at Six Lakes are much bigger and grow some FATTY rainbows. I wish I knew what strain of bow that they were. All I do know is that if I want to go catch some chunky, hard fighting rainbows on a fly rod I always keep Six Lakes in the back of my head. And of coarse that big pond downstream of the property. I think the survival of the fish depends mostly on oxygen. In winter or summer. The reason they are so fat. SCUDS
[signature]
|
