# Kamloops?



## Greenguy88 (Sep 7, 2007)

So I was looking up the stocking information for some lakes in Idaho we fished recently, and it said they have been stocking Triploid Kamloop in the lakes. Now I know these are a different strain of rainbows, but how can you tell the difference between a kamloop and a regular rainbow? Or can you? Just curious...


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

The short answer: you can't unless Idaho is doing something to mark those fish. Check to see if they are clipping fins or tagging fish.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

They grow incredibly fast and fight like hell!


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

Because they are triploid, they are also sterile.


----------



## fishing#1 (Sep 10, 2007)

the f/g put some of them into mantua after they killed the lake about 10 or so years ago.
but i have not seen that big of trout up their so did they really put them in there or not :?: :?: :?:


----------



## HGD (Mar 5, 2008)

peek under the tail................oh thats the boy, girl, thing snicker What part of Idaho yoou fishin? I have a bud who drives one of thier fish trucks. I can ask him for ya. I'm headed up there for some sturgeon wrasslin........ 8) was up there a week ago. All we could catch was bows in the 14 to 19 inch range. But they sure were yummy with a bit of lemon....... :twisted:


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

fishing#1 said:


> the f/g put some of them into mantua after they killed the lake about 10 or so years ago.
> but i have not seen that big of trout up their so did they really put them in there or not :?: :?: :?:


maybe the limiting factor in fish size in Mantua (and many other reservoirs in Utah) isn't the strain of rainbow trout they stock? Maybe it's the environment, or some other variable? Maybe the f/g actually did stock kamloops, only to find that they didn't perform any better then the other strains used in Utah...


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

> maybe the limiting factor in fish size in Mantua (and many other reservoirs in Utah) isn't the strain of rainbow trout they stock? Maybe it's the environment, or some other variable?


I doubt that. I spend a lot of time out at the LC Ranch, near altamont. All stillwater fisheries. No aerators. No feeding of the fish. Yet, some of these lakes (some of which are only and acre or two) grow fish that that can reach beyond 30 inches. Fish 20-23 inches are very common.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> I doubt that. I spend a lot of time out at the LC Ranch, near altamont. All stillwater fisheries. No aerators. No feeding of the fish. Yet, some of these lakes (some of which are only and acre or two) grow fish that that can reach beyond 30 inches. Fish 20-23 inches are very common.


You're trying to argue that the environment at the LC Ranch isn't any different than at Mantua??!!

The LC Ranch is private. It's stocking scheme is manipulated very differently than that of Mantua. The regulations at Mantua are different than the harvest management at LC Ranch.

Who can fish at the LC Ranch? Is it open to the public? Is there a 4 trout limit? Do you still think that the environment is the same? Are you on drugs?

What you are telling me is that the limiting factor to fish size in Utah reservoirs is _strain_?

Proof of this misconception can be seen by looking at Minersville. Kamloops rainbows would fair fare worse in Minersville than the current strain being used simply due to the time of year they spawn -- the time of year they spawn dictates the size of the fish in the spring when the reb breasted cormorants show up to feed on small fish. If those fish aren't large enough, they get eaten -- which is a serious limiting factor to potential fish growth!

Strain is NOT the limiting factor to fish size in Mantua. Water temps will limit the potential growth in that lake far quicker than strain will.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

> The LC Ranch is private. It's stocking scheme is manipulated very differently than that of Mantua. The regulations at Mantua are different than the harvest management at LC Ranch.


I guess it goes to show what sound management practices can accomplish.



> If those fish aren't large enough, they get eaten -- which is a serious limiting factor to potential fish growth!


I cannot believe you would really think this. You must be the one on drugs. Your response is so counter-productive to what you have stated in the past. Whenever populations go down, the average size goes up. This is exactly why the DWR is trying to reduce the population on the middle provo (very high recruitment, lower average size). This is exactly why many fisheries around that I will not name have a low population but a large average size. The fish that do make it and survive grow to be very large, healthy trout.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

If the DWR wasn't using sound management plans on reservoirs like Minersville, there would be NO fish in them. Cormorants decimated fish populations to the point where there were no trout left in the lake. This is the reason why special regulations are in place at Minersville.

Sound management is looking at the entire system, and trying to identify bottlenecks. From years of managing many waters, the UDWR knows and understands that in most situations, species strain is not the bottleneck on fish growth.

Even at LC Ranch, this doesn't hold true.

I wonder how far the DWR would get if they started managing public lakes and reservoirs the same as LC Ranch -- by limiting anglers. How many people are allowed to fish those lakes at LC Ranch?

Kamloops rainbows have been stocked in Mantua. They haven't performed any better than the current strain. The problem isn't strain. The bottleneck is somewhere else.

http://www.bcadventure.com/ronnewman/kamloops.phtml.
read the last paragraphs. They say the same thing I'm saying. The growth of even Kamloops rainbows depends on other factors. Strain alone doesn't grow big fish.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

Of course. Mantua is a small lake with a large panfish population. There is a lot of competetion there for food. It is also very close to over a million people. 

So the fish must be 
1) Running out of food
2) stunted (goes hand in hand with 1)
3) People are keeping more decent fish than the fishery can sustain. Most anglers through back 10-12" trout and keep the 14" + fish. Therefore you end up with with a lake full of 10-12 inch fish despite have a excellent growth rate. Has the dwr done any tagging studies on Rainbows from Mantua to find out how well they are growing? 

C'mon, Comorants eating EVERY fish in minersville? Im sure that the water draw downs at Minersville have a hell of a lot more to do with the lack of fish than birds!


----------



## Greenguy88 (Sep 7, 2007)

I guess I should have clarified my question, do they differ in physical appearance?
Anywho


HGD said:


> peek under the tail................oh thats the boy, girl, thing snicker What part of Idaho yoou fishin? I have a bud who drives one of thier fish trucks. I can ask him for ya. I'm headed up there for some sturgeon wrasslin........ 8) was up there a week ago. All we could catch was bows in the 14 to 19 inch range. But they sure were yummy with a bit of lemon....... :twisted:


We have been fishin lakes in the Malad area. Good conversation we got goin here!


----------



## DocEsox (May 12, 2008)

Greenguy......you have to ask...what are you calling a "normal" rainbow? Rainbow trout are not native to Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, most of Idaho....only one river in Montana...therefore what do we consider a rainbow. So all rainbows in Utah are stocked, although they may have been "wild" fish now, for decades. The original stocks propagated a century ago and spread throughout the US...and the world...originally stemmed from primarily a mixture of McCloud River steelhead and stream resident rainbows. Over the years other "strains" have been in different mixes...so basically the predominant rainbow spread over the Pacific Northwest would have to be considered a "mutt" rainbow trout....oncorhynchus mykiss. Kamloops are an inland redband trout which also falls under the oncorhynchus mykiss umbrella but has a distinct subspecies name of gairdneri. As far as large growth their is only one "strain" of Kamloops which reached legendary size and that is the Gerrard Strain of Kamloops from Kootenay Lake. Even within Kootenay Lake their are 3 separate races or strains of Kamloops and only the Gerrard strain grows huge....why? It has evolved into having a piscivorous diet composed primarily of kokanee salmon. So to produce big Kamloops, providing you had the right strain to start with, you would need to have a large supply of relatively big forage fish like kokanee. Lake Pend Oreille developed large Kamloops after stocking....but the biggest known rainbow....although not a recognized fishing record....was a 52 lbs Gerrard strain Kamloops caught in Jewel Lake in B.C. after they were stocked. This would of course, apply to "natural" fish......induced triploids do grow much larger then diploid fish as they put no energy into producing gonads.

Back to your question....can you tell "mutt" rainbows from the Kamloops....probably not unless they are somehow marked.... There is a small tributary of Kootenai River in Montana, the East Fork of Yaak river, which has the only pure strain of rainbows....oncorhynchus mykiss gairdneri (same as the Kamloops) native to Montana...cute little farts...made a pilgrammage out there a few years ago just to catch some:


















Little stream...small, resident wild native trout....too fun to catch.

The only trout native to Utah is the Bonneville Cutthroat (oncorhynchus clarkii utah...which includes a substrain....Bear Lake Cutthroats) and some Colorado River Cutts in the eastern part of Utah.

Sorry....I love talking about this stuff.

Brian


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> So the fish must be
> 1) Running out of food
> 2) stunted (goes hand in hand with 1)
> 3) People are keeping more decent fish than the fishery can sustain. Most anglers through back 10-12" trout and keep the 14" + fish. Therefore you end up with with a lake full of 10-12 inch fish despite have a excellent growth rate. Has the dwr done any tagging studies on Rainbows from Mantua to find out how well they are growing?


You're limiting your list to 3 variables? There are many more than that. What about summer time temps? What about oxygen levels (both summer and winter). What about vegetation? What about algae blooms? There are many more variables that go into growth rates than the 3 you listed.

Also, the DWR most likely has historical records on rainbow trout in Mantua dating back for many, many years. So, yes -- I'm positive they have done numerous "studies" on the growth rates of rainbow trout. Have you talked to any biologists from the northern region on this?



flyguy7 said:


> C'mon, Comorants eating EVERY fish in minersville? Im sure that the water draw downs at Minersville have a hell of a lot more to do with the lack of fish than birds!


Obviously, you are ignorant concerning the management plan of Minersville Reservoir. The answer to your question (EVERY fish in Minersville?) is: Yes. Nearly every fish. In fact, the studies showed that cormorants were outfishing fishermen 3:1. For every 1 trout that fishermen caught cormorants took 3! Fishermen couldn't hardly find a fish in Minersville prior to the regulation change back in the late 80's. The reason? Bird predation. The rainbow trout were not making it through the cormorant smorgasbord!

The solution? Stock a strain of rainbow trout that spawned at a different time of year, thus allowing for them to grow to a size larger than what the cormorants could eat when the cormorants passed through on their yearly migration. Additional factors were C&R regulations. In order for this strategy to work, anglers also needed to release their catch.

I know you won't read these documents, but they prove what I'm stating:
https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/Fisheri ... e%2006.pdf
https://ojs.lib.byu.edu/ojs/index.php/w ... ew/518/374

You'll most likely learn something if you take the time to read these articles.

It is interesting to note (do a Google search) how many references there are to the Minersville studies on cormorants across the United States. Numerous state's fish and game agencies used these studies for their own research.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Doc -- I appreciated your post. I find it amusing how many people fall prey to the legendary status of the Kamloops rainbows. It seems that every time rainbow trout management in Utah comes up, anglers think Kamloops are the answer. It is very sad to see that the majority of anglers don't know anything about Kamloops rainbows. Their status has become that of a mythical legend. Few understand that the term "kamloops" has become more of a marketing term than a sound biological term.

Good discussion.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

FWIW -- here's a document that talks about the different strains of rainbow trout used in British Columbia, Canada. Isn't this where the legendary "kamloops" originated?

www.gofishbc.com/docs/2208A06B4B85CFDB.pdf


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

For a pretty comprehensive analysis of rainbow trout strains, read the following:
https://research.idfg.idaho.gov/Fisheri ... e%2003.pdf

After reading the IDF&G report on rainbow trout strains, I found some interesting thoughts:

"On a broad scale the importance of strain selection for put-and-take fisheries appears small and inconsistent....In put-and-take fisheries where long-term growth and survival is desired, strain selection may be more important, but we cannot reliably recommend any one strain with the available information."

"In put-and-grow fisheries, stocked fish are usually expected to survive and grow for 6 months to 1 year before entering the fishery. Strain selection is more important in this case. Domestic strains do not survive well under natural conditions, and may not provide cost-effective returns. Wild strains generally have superior survival and growth, and may be longer-lived than domestic strains. In waters with the potential to produce trophy trout, selection of a late-maturing strain may be especially important."

"Most strain evaluation studies are site- and time-specific. Most studies we reviewed included few or no spacial or temporal replications. In those that did, strain performance results were often inconsistent or contradictory...Lake-to-lake and year-to-year environmental effects often clouded the strain effects on performance."

My thoughts on the above information:
1) The difference strain may or may not make in our fisheries is minimal and inconsequential.
2) Because we do not have wild strains of rainbow trout, even in trophy situations strain will not make a huge impact.
3) Because the Utah DWR is moving towards heat-shocked sterile rainbow trout, the added benefit a wild late-maturing strain would give our fisheries is nullified.
4) Strain may appear to make a large difference in some cases; however, the results are "often inconsistent and contradictory."
5) Environmental impacts are more inhibiting to fish growth than strain.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

I read through the studies but you still are not addressing the point. PBH.


> You're limiting your list to 3 variables? There are many more than that. What about summer time temps? What about oxygen levels (both summer and winter). What about vegetation? What about algae blooms? There are many more variables that go into growth rates than the 3 you listed.


 The reason why Mantua was brought up was the limiting factor in the SIZE of fish in Mantua, not the overall survival as a whole. Summer temps, algae, and vegetation are going to have MUCH less of an impact on growth rates than they are of long term survival.

W2U, I think you make a great point. I too, believe that strain has a much bigger affect in put-and-grow fisheries than put and take. Obviously, as I stated before a good amount of the population gets taken home once they become "keeper" size. This is just my opinion but I think that size to most people is around 14-15". Maybe the DWR should give some fisheries a chance for the fish to grow to see if the average size does increase? A much more cost effective option, especiall considering the state budget cuts that are on the horizon.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> W2U, I think you make a great point. I too, believe that strain has a much bigger affect in put-and-grow fisheries than put and take. Obviously, as I stated before a good amount of the population gets taken home once they become "keeper" size. This is just my opinion but I think that size to most people is around 14-15". Maybe the DWR should give some fisheries a chance for the fish to grow to see if the average size does increase? A much more cost effective option, especiall considering the state budget cuts that are on the horizon.


I think you missed the point...strain only becomes important in these put-and-grow fisheries because the fish are held in hatcheries until the timing is right for them to be stocked. In such cases, fish have to grow fast enough to reach certain sizes so that they can survive in a fishery. Minersville is the perfect example where fish strain is vital. If the DWR didn't use fall-spawning rainbow trout, they couldn't grow fish fast enough and large enough in the hatcheries to assure survival in the reservoir.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> . Obviously, as I stated before a good amount of the population gets taken home once they become "keeper" size. This is just my opinion but I think that size to most people is around 14-15". Maybe the DWR should give some fisheries a chance for the fish to grow to see if the average size does increase? A much more cost effective option, especiall considering the state budget cuts that are on the horizon.


In terms of limiting factors, then, what you are describing has NOTHING to do with strain. If sizes increased when harvest regulations change, a limiting factor of size would be harvest.

Also, changing harvest regulations may or may NOT be more cost effective depending on the usage of a fishery. I know, for example, that some Utah reservoirs have actually seen declines in use when restrictive regulations were implemented. This, despite higher average fish sizes and "better" fishing.

Another good link to read: http://wildlife.utah.gov/blueribbon/4-step_plan.pdf

It talks a lot about fish growth and fisheries management.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> Obviously, as I stated before a good amount of the population gets taken home once they become "keeper" size. This is just my opinion but I think that size to most people is around 14-15". Maybe the DWR should give some fisheries a chance for the fish to grow to see if the average size does increase?


So, how would kamloops strain fit into this? Do the kamloops somehow avoid anglers more so than other strains?

It sounds like the limiting factor, as pointed out by W2U, is harvest - not strain. So, if you reduce harvest you remove one limiting factor of fish growth. Now you have to determine what the next limiting factor is. It still might not be strain.

Given the opportunity (removing harvest and predation) would desmet or sand creek rainbows be able to grow to trophy sizes in Utah reservoirs?


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

As many links as you have posted, you still haven't answered my question about the growth factor in regards to Mantua rainbows. You two brothers ever wonder why so many people in Utah (just as k2musky) are so skeptical about various "management" plans implemented by the DWR? Instead of answering the question, K2 got who did you talk to? who did you talk to? who did you talk to? On many occasions I have tried to talk to various biologist about various fisheries around the state. I have gotten the same thing. I made numerous calls last year in regards to the drastic drop in the population at Diamond Fork. Remember? I was told on numerous occasions by the central offices that there was no population decline. I was then told to talk to Don Wiley to find out when the stream was going to be electroshocked for a population estimate. Nearly two months passed before I received a phone call from Don saying that there was no reason because they think it was unnecessary because they haven't noticed any significant population drop and they were running out of time so it was not of concern. Then you two tell me there has been a significant drop in numbers since the completion of the Tanner Ridge tunnel system near Monks Hollow because of a lower flow regime and lack of suitable habitat. Hmmm, which one is it?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

flyguy7 said:


> As many links as you have posted, you still haven't answered my question about the growth factor in regards to Mantua rainbows.


I guess I'm not clear on your question. Are you asking me what the growth factors are at Mantua? If so, I don't know the specific factors at Mantua. What I do know is that changing strain to kamloops won't change the size of fish that people catch at Mantua.

If this is the wrong question, then please tell me so I can give you my opinion on it.



flyguy7 said:


> Then you two tell me there has been a significant drop in numbers since the completion of the Tanner Ridge tunnel system near Monks Hollow because of a lower flow regime and lack of suitable habitat. Hmmm, which one is it?


Again, I'm somewhat confused. I don't recall ever talking to you about Diamond Fork, the Tanner Ridge tunnel system, or Monks Hollow.

however, i do know that Don Wiley is a very good biologist. If he told me that they haven't noticed a significant population drop on Diamond Fork, I'd believe him. I know how much he fishes. I trust his opinion. I think he knows what he's doing.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

by wyoming2utah on Mon Nov 17, 2008 10:45 am



> In the past, you could almost walk across the spawning fish...they were pretty thick. Now, though, the flows on Diamond Fork have changed dramatically as well as the river. About 4 years ago Diamond Fork went from having very high flows all summer long to consistent flows year round (the extra water was put in pipe). With those high summer flows, the river was scoured and the fine sediment washed away...this left good spawning habitat and good fish numbers. The high summer flows also helped control recruitment and keep fish numbers at good levels and growth stayed high. With the change in summer flows and the consistent summer flows, spawning gravel is not as easy to find because of the fine sediment and fish are not as successful in their recruitment. The river is in a state of flux....the old flows washed out the river channel and created wide banks...the lower flows now run between those old banks. The river needs time to adapt...only time will tell whether brown trout will need to be stocked to sustain higher levels or not. However, one thing that is for sure...the stream holds some really nice fish. These big ones are not numerous, but they are there.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

And, your conversation with me proves what?


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

I guess you didn't read the above post so here is my point again.



> You two brothers ever wonder why so many people in Utah (just as k2musky) are so skeptical about various "management" plans implemented by the DWR? Instead of answering the question, K2 got who did you talk to? who did you talk to? who did you talk to? On many occasions I have tried to talk to various biologist about various fisheries around the state. I have gotten the same thing. I made numerous calls last year in regards to the drastic drop in the population at Diamond Fork. Remember?


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Again, what does it prove? It doesn't prove anything....it proves that you had a conversation with ME...not with Don, not with anyone from any offices, and it definitely doesn't prove that what I said contradicts anything said by anyone else.

You talk as if my brother and I are DWR biologists; we are not. We don't have all the specific information...that is why we refer you to people who do.

The ironic thing, is that you still haven't answered the question by PBH--what question are you even referring to? I went back and read this whole thread, and I can't figure it out.



flyguy7 said:


> Has the dwr done any tagging studies on Rainbows from Mantua to find out how well they are growing?


Is it this one? IF so, the answer is obviously "no". Very rarely does the DWR do a "tagging" study to determine growth. Instead, they simply use their gill netting data to determine growth. So, I guess the answer is also "yes". They do have that information.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

flyguy -- I'm having a hard time following where you are going with this discussion. I very quickly went from "kamloops" to Diamond Fork.

If you want to discuss Diamond Fork, let's start a new thread.

Do you have anything else concerning Kamloops, and Mantua?


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

I was reading something here where the poster said that Kamloops expend their energy in growing and not on reproduction.
This is why they grow big and fast.

Don't these fish go through the process of spawn but without success because they are sterile?

If so, the same energy would be spent on Kamloop spawning as it is with other Trout that can reproduce.

Anyone know the answer?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Grandpa -- I think you are a bit confused. It's the triploidy fish that are sterile. Kamloops are not sterile, unless their eggs are heat-shocked for triploidy (steril).

Check this out. Start reading about half-way down the page where it start: 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:

http://www.aquahabitat.com/myths.html

I especially liked this opening section:

"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. "


----------



## Grandpa D (Sep 7, 2007)

Good point, PBH.

Do they stock sterile Kamloop Trout, or are they not sterile.
I know that the DWR likes to use sterile trout in many waters, but I'm not sure about Kamloop.

Any insight?


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

From what I know, Utah rarely uses "kamloops". They do use strains like Desmet, Sand Creek, Tensleep, etc...

Edit: http://wildlife.utah.gov/fes/brood.html


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Utah has/is using Kamloops in the past...besides Mantua, Kamloops bows have been stocked into the Gorge. At one time, the plan was to use Mantua as a brood source for Kamloops, but that plan failed when perch were reintroduced.

Also, Utah is doing a lot of work right now with whirling disease resistant strains of rainbows--the Harrison Lake strain and the Hofer strain. Utah has crossed these two strains and is has stocked them into a couple of reservoirs with the Ten Sleep strain to see which performs the best:
http://wildlife.utah.gov/news/06-10/whi ... isease.php
http://wildlife.utah.gov/fes/pdf/volume_18-34.pdf


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

For a very comprehensive evaluation of rainbow trout stocking and performance along with a lot of good information on different strains, read this report:
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/226925.pdf

Interestingly, I counted at least 5 studies from Utah in the annotated bibliography that dealt with rainbow trout strains...


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

So why cross the Hofer and the Harrison strains? It seems that the Hofer (german) strains have already been proven to be a highly WD resistant fish. http://www.lsc.usgs.gov/SPN.asp?StudyPlanNum=01109


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

Because the Hofer strain is a very domesticated strain of rainbow trout. I would have to imagine that UDWR officials are looking for a rainbow trout that not only is WD resistant, but also has other desirable characteristics that might not be found in the Hofer strain.


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

While I have no scientific data, it seems to me that the Kamploops strain rainbows have done very well in flaming gorge the past few years. I see a lot more larger fish (18-22") in the gorge as well as much higher numbers of fish traveling up sheep creek to spawn in the spring.


----------



## PBH (Nov 7, 2007)

That's great!! Good to hear they are doing well, at least from your perspective.


----------



## wyoming2utah (Sep 12, 2007)

Read the following studies:
http://www.cnr.usu.edu/wats/files/uploa ... annRep.pdf

http://www.cnr.usu.edu/wats/files/uploa ... actors.pdf

The first reads: "Today, both the Utah Division of Wildlife Resources (UDWR) and the Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) stock rainbow trout in Flaming Gorge Reservoir. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources stocks approximately 250,000 subadult 
(approximately 20 cm) rainbow trout in Flaming Gorge Reservoir annually, and 
WGFD stocks the equivalent biomass. Those rainbow trout that overwinter in the 
reservoir have shown limited growth and poor body condition. Despite the fact that 
the reservoir has shifted from a premier rainbow trout fishery to a trophy lake trout 
fishery, rainbow trout are still highly desired by the average recreational angler in 
Flaming Gorge Reservoir."

The second states: "the currently stocked strain of Eagle Lake rainbow trout may not have a propensity for piscivory or an adequate forage ?sh base and, therefore, may be limited in early growth rates or maximum size attainable. During the 1960s, when Kamloops strain rainbow trout were stocked into Flaming Gorge Reservoir, the reservoir hosted one of the premier trophy rainbow trout ?sheries in the western United States. Presently, it is the lake trout that provide a large, challenging trophy sport ?sh for experienced and determined anglers.

If the goal of a rainbow trout stocking program is to satisfy the casual weekend angler, these rainbow trout appear to be demonstrating adequate growth rates relative to other systems and may be well suited for that component of the angler population (Hepworth et al. 1999). However, a substantial portion of the rainbow trout stocked annually into Flaming Gorge Reser voir are consumed by lake trout predators (Yule 1992) and do not demonstrate maximum growth rates and, thus, there are few large, trophy-sized ?sh. This factor must be considered in terms of the costs and bene?ts of managing both rainbow and lake trout ?sheries within the same system (Johnson and Martinez 2000). Overall, managers may be most effective with their stocking strategies by considering speci?c characteristics of the prey and predator base, the suitability of different habitats, and the genetic strain within the context of management goals and the targeted angler population."


----------



## Greenguy88 (Sep 7, 2007)

Cool. Tons of good info, thanks guys. PBH was right, I got a little caught up in the "myth" of Kamloops. :mrgreen: Thanks!


----------



## flyguy7 (Sep 16, 2007)

I don't disagree that rainbows make up a good percentage of the diet for lake trout. Rainbows and Kokanee make up a huge percentage. But I fish FGR often and I can't remember the last time the rainbows were in as good as shape as they are now. I notice the studies are 9, 10, and 17 years old, repectively. Like I said, go to the mouth of Sheep creek in April or throw cicadas to the cliff walls in June. The rainbows are in very good shape.


----------



## handsomefish (Nov 14, 2007)

The rainbows are in good shape at the gorge , but even at 18"-22" there still bait for 40 plus pound lake trout


----------

