Lenice/Nunnally size of fish?
- Thread starter Ronbow
- Start date
I'm curious about how effective rotenone treatment is at removing unwanted species - it seems to me that with lakes that have lots of shallows that support dense tule, cattail, phragmite and other plant growth that getting the toxin into the vegetation where undoubtedly some of the fish reside, would be next to impossible.
And then there's the health risk (perceived, factual? I don't know.) from the chemical - I've read here on the internet, and we all know everything published here is factual, that rotenone can be a trigger to Parkinson's. The last "Blue" (Sun Lakes chain) was treated, there was quite an uproar from lakeside residents.
And then there's the health risk (perceived, factual? I don't know.) from the chemical - I've read here on the internet, and we all know everything published here is factual, that rotenone can be a trigger to Parkinson's. The last "Blue" (Sun Lakes chain) was treated, there was quite an uproar from lakeside residents.
It’s part of their job to get rid of detrimental species.For anyone who is interested in learning more about the how’s and why’s of managing our trout lakes, I’d suggest contacting your regional WDFW biologist. But probably don’t start by informing them that they don’t care about “serious anglers”
BC lakes typically don’t have spiny ray species, for starters.
Just compare Lenice to how it was 20 years ago. It’s not even close; hence, it can be managed better.
I agree with troutpocket, contact your WDFW regional biologist and ask them about the history of management at Lenice. Also ask them about the cost of eliminating sediment transport and ability of spiny rays to access Lenice.
I am being serious, I would like to know where in the Washington Administrative Code and Revised Code of Washington it specifies that WDFW is responsible for removal of deleterious species.
I am being serious, I would like to know where in the Washington Administrative Code and Revised Code of Washington it specifies that WDFW is responsible for removal of deleterious species.
In a series of lakes where trout have been introduced and aren't native to the waters.
Just google “WDFW rotenone lakes”. They state themselves that they use it to control fish populations
Which makes sense. They’re responsible for managing the fishery and unwanted species get in the way of management.
Also, the history of management, while interesting, ultimately doesn’t change the fact that I’ve watched the quality of fish go down with my own two eyes.
Last edited:
You are correct, rotenone cannot rid lakes of sunfish which find refuge in vegetatation.
how do I know this?
wdfw wildlife biologist at our local groups meeting told us only one lake in WA has ever been successfully rid of fish using rotenone.
knocks the fish back and planted trout thrive for a while but eventually sunfish populations come back.
jay
Willful ignorance in the face of overwhelming evidence is always an interesting thing to me. But don’t let me get in the way of your, “My own two eyes.” argument.
Last edited:
A number of Washington lakes have been successfully treated with Rotenone. Just a couple of examples as mentioned earlier Pass was treated in 1949 killing yellow perch. After the treatment the perch was absent from the lake for approximately 40 years. Suspect that their presence today was not because some survived the '49 treatment. Squalicum lake in Whatcom County (another fly only water) was treated in 1968 to remove brown bullheads and it remained free of bullheads for decades and may still be free of them.
The various sunfish species while easy to kill with rotenone the problem is getting the rotenone to the fish. The eggs of sunfish also can be difficult kill but by delaying the treatment well into the fall so the late spawn has hatch helps solve the issue. A system like the Lenice chain could be problematic and history probably tells us the it is not cost effective to treat the lake, the sunfish re-establish in the lake and trout survival drops within a year or two - again a call to the local fish biologist should shed light on that history.
The local residents (especially on the west side) have become the larger obstacle to attempting to treating water. A successful and popular fishery just brings crowds to "their lake".
Without the rehab tool the biologist to maintain a trout fishery is forced to move from a fry plant to planting larger trout. The so-called catchable trout is typically a little over a year old and in productive waters are smaller than the historic yearlings from a low density fry plant, often by several inches. That means the carry-overs from a catchable plant are smaller than carry-overs from a fry plant. In fact on exceptional waters the yearlings from a fry plant would be nearly as large as the carry-overs for a catchable plant and when they reach the carry-over stage can exceed 20 inches.
Curt
The various sunfish species while easy to kill with rotenone the problem is getting the rotenone to the fish. The eggs of sunfish also can be difficult kill but by delaying the treatment well into the fall so the late spawn has hatch helps solve the issue. A system like the Lenice chain could be problematic and history probably tells us the it is not cost effective to treat the lake, the sunfish re-establish in the lake and trout survival drops within a year or two - again a call to the local fish biologist should shed light on that history.
The local residents (especially on the west side) have become the larger obstacle to attempting to treating water. A successful and popular fishery just brings crowds to "their lake".
Without the rehab tool the biologist to maintain a trout fishery is forced to move from a fry plant to planting larger trout. The so-called catchable trout is typically a little over a year old and in productive waters are smaller than the historic yearlings from a low density fry plant, often by several inches. That means the carry-overs from a catchable plant are smaller than carry-overs from a fry plant. In fact on exceptional waters the yearlings from a fry plant would be nearly as large as the carry-overs for a catchable plant and when they reach the carry-over stage can exceed 20 inches.
Curt
Last edited:
Smart man
Fishing was always better in the good ole days. Always. I remember my dad taking me to spots where the trout were as long as my arm and a full stringer was too heavy to pick up. And we had the whole place to ourselves.
Is this a quality fish?
How about this one? 
Or maybe this one? 
There are still big fish out there. Lakes change over time. I can think of numerous lakes that have had undesirable fish within a few years after rehabilitation. Some of these lakes had tremendous fishing for a few years yes. But if a rehab isn't going to last more then 5 years what is the point? Examples include the Hampton Lakes, Teal Lakes, Park and Blue and so on. And the truth is if I lived on a lake I wouldn't want that lake treated either so I agree with the homeowners in that sense. There are probably plenty of undesirable aspects of treatment. And again with treatments not lasting long. What's the point?
I think we have a pretty nice plethora of options in our area all things considered. We all cling to the good old days. I too had fond memories of Lenice. But there are quality fish and lakes to be found still.
On the surface yes good idea. We all miss them in those lakes. The reality is I don't think it would work anymore even after a rehab. It just seems they don't compete that well or do that well overall. Look at Beda for example. They can't even survive in a lake alone. A couple years after a rehab.
Are Canadians less prone to bucket biology and/or accidental introductions than Americans? Is there something inherent to BC lakes that makes them less prone to spiny ray infestations? Something else?For anyone who is interested in learning more about the how’s and why’s of managing our trout lakes, I’d suggest contacting your regional WDFW biologist. But probably don’t start by informing them that they don’t care about “serious anglers”
BC lakes typically don’t have spiny ray species, for starters.
From what I understand, BC residents value their trout fisheries very highly. I’m not aware of many spinyrays in the provence outside of the lower mainland. So without more to go on, I think it’s a cultural thing.
Just for fun, let’s say you’re the WDFW Regional Bio in charge of Grant County. The current stocking plan puts rainbow trout in 61 lakes (from the WDFW website). Nearly all of the lakes have spinyrays too. You get a rotenone rehab budget that covers up to 1000 surface acres (probably more generous than reality). So you could treat a couple larger lakes like Park/Blue or focus on 10 smaller bodies like Lenice/Nunnally. You’ll need permits and buy in from the community. You’ll need to work with your PR people to put together a press release explaining what you’re doing and why. If the water connects to other jurisdictions (private, federal, a different state agency) you’ll need to get their buy in as well. Every location you want to rehab becomes a 3D chess game of logistics. Which lakes are you going to tackle and what’s your strategy?
Sheridan? I suppose someone dumping their goldfish bowl into a lake isn't the same as bucket biologists introducing smallmouth back into Park or Blue right after a rehab. Something else that occurs to me - completely off topic - is water clarity. So many of the lakes I drive past on my way towards Kamloops have such clear water, enticing shoals. I love the drive between Princeton and highway 97 west of Merritt - seeing those clear lakes gets me jazzed for the upcoming adventure (leaving May 28th).
In the meantime, @Wanative has reservations at Pings Pond, we're looking forward to hooking some great trout in a couple general regulation lakes.
If you haven’t seen “squat” as you claim, then by definition you are willfully ignoring the words of some very, very well informed members in this forum. Some of whom are actual fisheries biologists.
Those are damn nice fish. Did you catch em in Lenice?
