cowtownscribe Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 Hey all. I'm currently writing a story about the Little Smoky River, and am looking for feedback from the FFC forum members. A study carried out by the ACA this year showed that the biggest Grayling sampled had a total length of 445mm. F&W Catch rate data dating back to 1987 shows grayling up to 491mm being sampled. My own personal logs show that he last time I caught a Grayling in the class of the latter fish was in 1995. It had a length of 483mm. That was not the only one of that size I have caught from that river - but it is the last time I caught one that big. My question is this. Does anyone have any records of Grayling over 445mm being caught on the Little Smoky River in the past 10 years? Thanks, eh! Frank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SanJuanWorm Posted October 31, 2007 Share Posted October 31, 2007 I've only caught the little guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowtownscribe Posted November 1, 2007 Author Share Posted November 1, 2007 Oh I've caught my share (some would say more than my share) of little garyling as well, but its been a long time since I caught a hog on that river. Now if you want to talk about the suckers I kept snagging with streamers on my last trip - that's anothe matter all together - and one that I'm only admitting to now ;( See if you can spot the differnces between the angler and fish. Thanks to my buddy Ron for this flattering shot Frank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladystrange Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 uhhh, the fish has less hair??? j/k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverDoctor Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 Hey all. I'm currently writing a story about the Little Smoky River, and am looking for feedback from the FFC forum members. A study carried out by the ACA this year showed that the biggest Grayling sampled had a total length of 445mm. F&W Catch rate data dating back to 1987 shows grayling up to 491mm being sampled. My own personal logs show that he last time I caught a Grayling in the class of the latter fish was in 1995. It had a length of 483mm. That was not the only one of that size I have caught from that river - but it is the last time I caught one that big. My question is this. Does anyone have any records of Grayling over 445mm being caught on the Little Smoky River in the past 10 years? Thanks, eh! Frank. It was 1992 when my diary indicates larger greyling. After that there was definitely a decline in size. There seemed to be more smaller fish but few large. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowtownscribe Posted November 2, 2007 Author Share Posted November 2, 2007 I hear you SD. It is ironic that catch and release regulations have been in place on the upper section of the LSR since 1989, but the biggest fish I have caught came from the middle section - and prior to the extension of the catch an release regs in '96. In spite of the additional protection, the bigger fish are gone. According to F&W, the only way that this class of fish could have been removed is by Angling effort. As to LS, you obviously haven't seen me with my hat off. I will admit however, thet the sucker has fewer whiskers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladystrange Posted November 2, 2007 Share Posted November 2, 2007 lol. i'd love to see you with you hat off. i havent fished this system, i have fished for grayling at bear, wedge and quarry. the largest that we got this year out of bear was approx 400mm (16inches) and the one i got out of quarry was probably about 10 inches. as for fish 'n feathers... so if read this correctly, they say that the ONLY way the large fish could have possibly disappeared is by poaching from anglers? so that in turn would mean that there is no way that the larger fish could have just gotten old and died and then because of the catch and release rule in place that there just too many fish in the water system to support large growth? i wonder if they have ever contemplated the aquarium theory? i inch of fish per gallon of tank. 1 gallon tank = 1 average sized gold fish or beta, 33 gallon tank = 33, 1 inch fish or 3, 10 inch fish. over crowding causes failure to thrive in a lot of cases. just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cowtownscribe Posted November 2, 2007 Author Share Posted November 2, 2007 LS. That's a quote from a Fisheries Biologist that's driving the Arctic Grayling study on the Little Smoky River - not my own opinion. Based on the population asessments carried out this past summer, the river is nowhere near capacity. To me, the dieing of old age is plausible - but even then their genetics would have been passed on - and they would have been replaced by other big fish. There is something wrong when all of the big Grayling are missing from the system. On a brighter note, I talked to a guy that caught a 6.7 kg Bull on the LSR in October. That is the first decent size Bull I've heard of on that river in a long time. Now if only F&W would kick off a study on them - as Grayling are the focus of the current study Later, eh! Frank. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ladystrange Posted November 3, 2007 Share Posted November 3, 2007 i didnt think the opinion was yours. i just hope that at the end of the study they can come up with a slightly more logical reason for the lack of big fish, other than it's the fishermen's fault. perhaps preditors or water conditions. even if the big fish have died off from old age, we can't assume that the genetics would get passed on if the 'big growth' genetics are recessive genes and maybe only 1 in 4 have the potential to grow larger than 450mm. if that 1 fish doesnt get to mature, then no big fish and you have 2 average fish and one smaller than average. i guess the question becomes, what are the real factors, loss of habitat from logging or oil wells? (i dont know where the river is so i'm just throwing out some stuff) more predators, bears and bull trout? too fragile for any human contact causing a disturbance? all the old dead big fish were not fertile and didnt pass on any genes, air polution, or some secret band of fish poachers gill netting at night. so for those of you who have caught big graylings in 80's and early 90's, and continue to fish the river but only get 12inchers... what's changed in the last 20 years? more people fishing even though it is C&R, more big fish, general climate change, influences from recent industry in the area, water conditions? I'm just curious to see what everyone's thoughts and opinions are. perhaps a joint study might be in order. if the bulls are getting big, they have to be eating something. i've had bulls come after a 16 inch cutthroat on my line. and if the bulls are getting bigger and the grayling smaller, is there a corillation or just some random happenstance Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonEh Posted November 6, 2007 Share Posted November 6, 2007 Well now first off ladystrange you don't really want to see him with his hat off not a pretty sight and as for the sucker that was a small one, that the finest flyfisher known to my dog, caught at that pool so much for the grayling and the bull (trout that is), The cowtown dude knows what my fish sizes have been caught up there as he has been there to see the monsters,lol. So what else can I say about what he wants to know nothing so I will just slag him,,, ah no I won't he's a nice guy,,, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.