Question:
Great Post!! I had the advantage of learning an appreciation of nature & fishing from my father at an early age. Although he wasn’t a fly fisherman & we fished for bass, musky, northerns etc, he had a love of wilderness & we shared some wonderful times together. Since leaving my father’s home some thirty years ago & moving to Colorado, I’ve evolved into a fly fisherman through alot of reading, trial & error, and countless hours on the stream. The way I fish today, is very different from the fishing I did with my father, but it is firmly rooted in the appreciation of fish, water & nature I learned from him. I flyfish in my own way, that is more restrictive than George’s "one" definition. But this is FOR ME. I don’t define flyfishing for others by how I fish. I would probably be considered to be following the "Art Form.". For me, when things are "right", the pleasure is viseral, elementary & fundamental & may or may not involve catching fish. However, flaming, belittling other people’s ideas or ways of doing things, & self rightuous preachings do not advances one’s cause. In fact the opposite is the result. Like most things, flyfishing is personnal & individual. There are no rules except for those you choose to follow. There is no one right way. Willi
Response:
I never used a strike indicator until about two years ago. My eyes are deteriorating because of diabetes and I have trouble seeing my leader/line. I put on a piece of yarn I got from my wife (Lefty’s idea), and was amazed at the strikes I was able to detect.
I limit the use of strike indicators for those times of day when I would otherwise be unable to see my leader, so I guess i’m as unethical as Dave. Anybody who uses anything to aid his visual capacity must be unethical; I demand that all of you unethical polaroid user/abusers turn yourselves in at once. Charlie
Response:
William Loehman writes:
<<…..However, flaming, belittling other people’s ideas or ways of doing things, & self rightuous preachings do not advances one’s cause. In fact the opposite is the result. A couple of great posts, especially the above. I learned to fly fish in the 40s from my mom and dad, on the Deerfield, the Westfield, and the Farmington rivers. We did not have most of the "neat" things available to fly fishermen today. We didn’t have zingers or nippers. And, we didn’t have strike indicators OR Gink. The flames I have seen on ROFF must come in jest, because if you approve of one innovation (Gink for instance) but disapprove of another (strike indicators, for instance), then you are surely a hypocrite of the first order. I never used a strike indicator until about two years ago. My eyes are deteriorating because of diabetes and I have trouble seeing my leader/line. I put on a piece of yarn I got from my wife (Lefty’s idea), and was amazed at the strikes I was able to detect. It was as if a was a boy in the 40s, fishing a wet fly! I also sometimes use the things when fishing a dry, for I find it difficult to see my #16 caddis in fast water. However, they do affect the drift in a negative way. Orvis’ Quick Site orange butt leaders are also helpful for me to see the fly. Fly fishing has always been a visceral thing with me (and probably with most other folk also!). And, it has always been a solitary venture. You may "go" with a fishing buddy or two, but once you make your first cast, you are "alone". If I need something to help me continue fly fishing (strike indicators), I will use it and I could shive a git what some narrow-minded bigoted people think of it. And if you come upon me on a stream and call me "lazy" or "ignorant" or "stupid", well, you will be in a helluva lot of trouble. Dave LaCourse
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Great Post!! I had the advantage of learning an appreciation of nature & fishing from my father at an early age. Although he wasn’t a fly fisherman & we fished for bass, musky, northerns etc, he had a love of wilderness & we shared some wonderful times together. Since leaving my father’s home some thirty years ago & moving to Colorado, I’ve evolved into a fly fisherman through alot of reading, trial & error, and countless hours on the stream. The way I fish today, is very different from the fishing I did with my father, but it is firmly rooted in the appreciation of fish, water & nature I learned from him. I flyfish in my own way, that is more restrictive than George’s "one" definition. But this is FOR ME. I don’t define flyfishing for others by how I fish. I would probably be considered to be following the "Art Form.". For me, when things are "right", the pleasure is viseral, elementary & fundamental & may or may not involve catching fish. However, flaming, belittling other people’s ideas or ways of doing things, & self rightuous preachings do not advances one’s cause. In fact the opposite is the result. Like most things, flyfishing is personnal & individual. There are no rules except for those you choose to follow. There is no one right way. Willi
Somebody finally said "it all" about our sport. Congratulations Willi, you’ve really got a handle on it. Jim
Response:
I’m neither a red neck nor a yuppie, but somewhere in between. I didn’t get started in all this by some movie. I learned long ago on a river in my youth, the hard way. Many fish outings and many lessons over those early years. Today the upstarts buy a ticket at the window and get on the ride. Instantly you have a "Fly fisherman in a can." In gulp they take it all in without ever getting the true taste. They seem to acquire and possess the knowledge of several life times and doing it at hyper speed. Has Fly Fishing become a pastime that resembles a brothel in comparison? I guess most of us want the real genuine thing regardless of the amount of effort that we put forth. For some, the need is so great for success that the real elementary lessons are never really encountered. Today you can have any thing you want as long as you can pay for it. To hell with it if you have to earn it. Another example is that you can buy your way to the summit of Mt. Everest without ever having to work or earn a place on a real team. Somewhere the "Art Form of Fly Fishing" was taken over by the Science form. What does that mean? Every element has been reduced to the science matter of increasing the catch. Why, and to what end do we need the numbers? Our children have petting Zoos, do we need them too? For a number of years I was away from fly fishing, spending my time climbing and sailing. There you had to be a participant and be real to get from one place the next. You had to perform on your own merits and deficiencies and overcome your short comings. Yes, the real art form comes from within. But the science has reduced Fly Fishing to an action vs. reaction, to an event to a counter-event and so on. All the elements have been broken down to their parts to be studied and be reproduced. Blindness comes in many forms. I choose not to be one of the ones looking over the elephant. What George speaks of is the art form and trying to maintain some semblance of the true heritage. Some places are just not mente to be fished. Sort of like peeing on hallow ground. Could the heritage of fly fishing be lost in only one generation? The old-timers while not gods do have much to offer. Do we set them aside, all for the achievements for scientific end? I would rather learn form an old-timer than take the shortcut route via the scientific method. But as time moves on, new meets old and a blending occurs. Hopefully without the distortion of where we came from and adding a price tag to it. My ten year-old son summed it up the other day, "Dad, you know this is the best Sunday school that you take me to." He sees the true art form for what it is and the meaning of being skunked. He will spend more time watching and asking questions than actually fishing. He will keep a fish and throw some back for next time. He hates truck trout and the ones scared by others. We have more to learn from them than is truly realized. But is the evil metastasis occurring before our very eyes? For me its the real thing or sometimes a little hair on the palms. The store bought knowledge you can get it at the edge of most towns in Nevada. — Doug Knight metalfab<atefaxinc.com Junk e-mail, solicitation, sales, products and services gladly accepted at $500.00 per mailing and billed directly to your ISP. Evil flames $1,000.00 per mailing.
Response:
Question:
<SNIP are not stocked have been infected, so it is spreading somehow. Most states will reestablish rainbow populations by stocking hatchery-raised fish or establish populations of other species to replace the lost rainbows, correct? Any guesses on how long Montana’s policy of not stocking wild rivers will last when their tourist industry takes such a hit? On the same subject, what would be Idaho’s reaction if/when the Henry’s Fork is hit. I would be real surprised if Montana planted any fish. Because of the good population of brown trout, which are resistant to WD, they still have fish in the infected rivers. Besides,wasn’t Montana the first state to figure out that people will travel long distances to catch "wild" fish?
I don’t mean to change the subject, but the original question has recently become even more intriguing than when I originally posed it. The Yellowstone is the last wild river in the lower 48, but that doesn’t seem to be so important now that a few springcreeks have succumbed to what wild rivers naturally do on occasion (flood and change that is). Stocking wild rivers when the rainbows disappear is similar to damming wild rivers when the largely man-made springcreeks disappear. They are both justified with tourist dollars. Of course it remains to be seen what they will actually do on the Yellowstone. I am a cynic but I hope I am wrong. -al
Response:
<SNIP are not stocked have been infected, so it is spreading somehow. Most states will reestablish rainbow populations by stocking hatchery-raised fish or establish populations of other species to replace the lost rainbows, correct? Any guesses on how long Montana’s policy of not stocking wild rivers will last when their tourist industry takes such a hit? On the same subject, what would be Idaho’s reaction if/when the Henry’s Fork is hit.
I would be real surprised if Montana planted any fish. Because of the good population of brown trout, which are resistant to WD, they still have fish in the infected rivers. Besides,wasn’t Montana the first state to figure out that people will travel long distances to catch "wild" fish? Do you think people would travel long distances to catch hatchery planters?? I can see the ads now: "Come to Big Sky Country to catch our imitation rainbows reared in concrete runways by the thousands and behaviourly modified with regular feedings of Purina Trout Chow (floating variety – a reddish brown color). The "hot" fly this week (and every week) – either a brown Goddard Caddis with the hackle and antenna removed or a size10 brown beetle. If the fish aren’t rising just throw out a handful of pea gravel (sounds like PTC hitting the water). Guaranteed to make them rise (and since your fly is the only thing floating they’ll hit it thinking it’s PTC). Come on down!" I guarantee you I wouldn’t and I don’t think very many people would – and they know that. Just my .02 Dan Dan Gracia Orvis West Coast Fly Fishing Schools If you kill that big fish you can’t catch ‘em again. So what if they eat other fish? If you kill the big ones there will only be little ones left (funny how that works!).
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have a few questions about whirling disease I hope someone knowledgeable can answer. Any realistic estimates on how long it would take a river that has been hit hard by the disease (the Madison for example) to recover naturally without stocking? Years? Decades? Never? Will the parasite die off after a period with no juvenile rainbows, making the river suitable for repopulation? Can a significant portion of fry survive to sexual maturity, or does reproduction halt completely? It seems to me that by the time the river recovers to a point that it is suitable for a rainbow population again that the surviving trout, if any, would be too old to spawn. Let’s suppose that it is only a matter of time before all the wild rainbow fisheries in the west are affected. While it is awful to imagine, it seems realistic unless we find a way to kill the parasite. After all, rivers that are not stocked have been infected, so it is spreading somehow. Most states will reestablish rainbow populations by stocking hatchery-raised fish or establish populations of other species to replace the lost rainbows, correct? Any guesses on how long Montana’s policy of not stocking wild rivers will last when their tourist industry takes such a hit? On the same subject, what would be Idaho’s reaction if/when the Henry’s Fork is hit. I hope this initiates some useful discussion. -al
I am not an expert, but I have read that whirling disease has been around for over 200 years since it was first discovered in Europe. So our environment has been successfully dealing with it for quiet a while. It can be spread by man and animals, so if fishing were banned, it would still migrate to new streams. I was fortunate enough to talk to a very experinced guide in Montana a few weeks ago. His opinion on the disease is that its effects are minimal, and that the low count of frey is due to the extended fishing season ( to bring in the tourist bucks) and the trampling of the spawning beds by well intentioned fishermen. H.Payne
Response:
The spring creeks aren’t largely man made…they had allways existed and had fallen into disrepair from years of neglect and cattle grazing…they have been rehabilitated by man…veggitation restored, silt removed, etc…I will be very surprised if Montana increases it’s stocking program…there is no need…it’s so ironic that EVERYONE is SO concerned with whirling disease when the biggest threat to our Montana fisheries remains water quality….stop the Seven-Up Pete mine on the Blackfoot…restore the pre 1994 water quality standards!!!
Response:
These responses are part fact and part my own distilled opinion…
I have heard that rivers with a substantial elevation drop are less susceptible to WD. Can anyone verify this? Thanks, Mitch
Response:
Al, The discussions I’ve monitored predict that a certain percentage of the population will be resistant to WD. These fish will reproduce, passing on their resistance. After a few generations, equilibrium will be restored. If we leave nature alone, she’ll do what she has done for million of years– repair and improve herself. But then, my boss calls me a stary-eyed optomist! Tight lines, Charley
Jonathan Cook’s response has indicated -and there is evidence from several Eastern and Western states to substantiate this- that the presence of the parasite does not immediately lead to the symptoms of infections, eg skeletal deformations, ‘whirling’, black tail. Whether or not this means that a resident population has developed an immune response to the parasite is still debatable. Published reports indicate that there is some antibody response to the presence of the parasite, however this may or may not lead to removal of the parasite by known immune response pathways. The primary reason whirling disease is so devastating is the attack on skelatal material that has not ossified. So survival/morbidity depends on the presence of the parasite, its apparent mandatory passage through the intermediate host, the Tubifex worm, the release of the infectious stage of the parasite, and attachment to the host fish–all at a time when the fish has not undergone ossification of the site of attack (the spine and some head skeleton regions). So survival is dependent on the life histories of the parasite, its intermediate host and the main host. All of the fish so far discussed are at risk, although there is a gradation that increases from browns to cutts to rainbows. Someone rightly pointed out that the primary target for the present are rainbows which are the progeny of planted fish – I believe but am not sure that Montana stopped planting fish in rivers in the late 70’s, but continue to do so in lakes in the state. I am more concerned on the fate of native, wild fish (eg the cutts) than those that have been moved from other locations (the rainbow and brown). Don
Response:
I have heard that rivers with a substantial elevation drop are less susceptible to WD. Can anyone verify this? My guess is that yes, this is a big factor in susceptibility. A high gradient stream doesn’t play good host to the tubifex worm, and is less fertile in general. Thus, the WD spore concentration will be less during the ossification period of the young trout’s skeleton. More trout live, and the overall affect is less. I’d say a good example of this is the Big Thompson. Very little effect.
Or the Roaring Fork ? TimW
Response:
These responses are part fact and part my own distilled opinion… I have heard that rivers with a substantial elevation drop are less susceptible to WD. Can anyone verify this? Thanks, Mitch
One of the stages in the WD parasites’ life is in the tubifex worm. These worms live in the mud on the bottom of a river. A large elevation drop generally means faster water, and no mud accumulation. No mud, no worms, no place for the WD parasite to accumulate. Also faster water means a dead rotting WD infested carcass doesn’t go to the bottom to spread it’s spores. It gets swept away. Darryl Hayashida
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – These responses are part fact and part my own distilled opinion… I have heard that rivers with a substantial elevation drop are less susceptible to WD. Can anyone verify this? Thanks, Mitch One of the stages in the WD parasites’ life is in the tubifex worm. These worms live in the mud on the bottom of a river. A large elevation drop generally means faster water, and no mud accumulation. No mud, no worms, no place for the WD parasite to accumulate. Also faster water means a dead rotting WD infested carcass doesn’t go to the bottom to spread it’s spores. It gets swept away.
Does this latter posit a positive argument for catch and kill ? TimW
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – These responses are part fact and part my own distilled opinion… I have heard that rivers with a substantial elevation drop are less susceptible to WD. Can anyone verify this? Thanks, Mitch One of the stages in the WD parasites’ life is in the tubifex worm. These worms live in the mud on the bottom of a river. A large elevation drop generally means faster water, and no mud accumulation. No mud, no worms, no place for the WD parasite to accumulate. Also faster water means a dead rotting WD infested carcass doesn’t go to the bottom to spread it’s spores. It gets swept away. Does this latter posit a positive argument for catch and kill ? TimW
Not really. ’Cuz the fish killed by WD are fry that you wouldn’t catch anyway. ’Course, I suppose larger fish could be host to it without being killed by it. But, taking all the fish out of the system to save the system, somehow, seems short-sighted to me. Tight lines and straight fish, Charley
Response:
. Most hard-hit waters are tailwaters — no runoff, constant temps, and lots of moss and mud for tubifex worms (the other host).
Hi Jon, and now Gas Bubble disease can be added to the list of problems in tailwaters. A recent study on the Colorado River states: …Trout sampled exhibited higher symptoms of both whirling disease and gas bubble trauma in stream sections with high saturation levels than those with lower saturation levels. These results indicate a combined effect of whirling disease and gas bubble trauma is affecting young -of-the-year rainbow and brown trout in the study area. regards, Mike
Response:
Of course, this applies to wild fish. If it’s a hatchery fish, keep it. Darryl Hayashida
how do you distinguish a hatchery fish from a wild one ? just curious (i’m a strict C&R guy) — phone +303-492-3504 | Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry fax +303-492-5894 | University of Colorado at Boulder
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I have a few questions about whirling disease I hope someone knowledgeable can answer. Any realistic estimates on how long it would take a river that has been hit hard by the disease (the Madison for example) to recover naturally without stocking? Years? Decades? Never? Will the parasite die off after a period with no juvenile rainbows, making the river suitable for repopulation? Can a significant portion of fry survive to sexual maturity, or does reproduction halt completely? It seems to me that by the time the river recovers to a point that it is suitable for a rainbow population again that the surviving trout, if any, would be too old to spawn. Are steelhead susceptible? Let’s suppose that it is only a matter of time before all the wild rainbow fisheries in the west are affected. While it is awful to imagine, it seems realistic unless we find a way to kill the parasite. After all, rivers that are not stocked have been infected, so it is spreading somehow. Most states will reestablish rainbow populations by stocking hatchery-raised fish or establish populations of other species to replace the lost rainbows, correct? Any guesses on how long Montana’s policy of not stocking wild rivers will last when their tourist industry takes such a hit? On the same subject, what would be Idaho’s reaction if/when the Henry’s Fork is hit. I hope this initiates some useful discussion. -al
Al, The discussions I’ve monitored predict that a certain percentage of the population will be resistant to WD. These fish will reproduce, passing on their resistance. After a few generations, equilibrium will be restored. If we leave nature alone, she’ll do what she has done for million of years– repair and improve herself. But then, my boss calls me a stary-eyed optomist! Tight lines, Charley
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Of course, this applies to wild fish. If it’s a hatchery fish, keep it. Darryl Hayashida how do you distinguish a hatchery fish from a wild one ? just curious (i’m a strict C&R guy) In the area I fish in, a stocker is a 10 to 12 inch rainbow with tattered fins and a dark almost black back.They all look the same, as if they were cranked out by an assembly line. The fins are tattered because they grow up packed into a concrete pen where their fins rub against the walls and each other. The hatchery fish also tend to nip each others fins. Probably out of irritation or maybe lack of anything else to do. Their backs are black because the have no way to get out of the sun and fish skin reacts to strong sunlight just like human skin does – increased melanin, or in other words, a suntan. Darryl Hayashida
Here in Oregon, the hatchery workers clip the adipose fin (the one located on the back behind the main (dorsal?) fin). Andy Clark Albany, OR
Response:
Text deleted… In the end it will be the hatchery raised WD exposed fish that has the best chance of survival and passing on resistance to its offspring. regards, Mike
We are talking about two different animals here. In my disscusions with fishery biologists in the area I fish in, I found out that the hatchery fish have a very low survival rate. On the order of 2 to 3 percent. One of the reasons is that the "catchable" size stocked is 10 to 12 inches. Any fish raised for the better portion of a year on Purina Trout Chow isn’t going to recognize a caddis or mayfly or a nymph as food. All I’m saying is in my area stockers are going to die anyway, so you might as well keep them. This is probably different in your area. Also, the area I fish in has had WD for decades. It still has wild trout. They seem to be resistant, and C&R seems to be a positive factor, preserving resistant fish to breed, not a cause of spreading WD. Go ahead and post your rebuttal, and I will read it, but this debate will probably go on for years and we, at least I, can’t do a darned thing about WD. So, if you don’t mind, I respectfully bow out of this discussion. I only entered into it again to answer the question on why it appears steep stream gradients don’t have a WD problem. Darryl Hayashida
Response:
Of course, this applies to wild fish. If it’s a hatchery fish, keep it. Darryl Hayashida how do you distinguish a hatchery fish from a wild one ? just curious (i’m a strict C&R guy)
In the area I fish in, a stocker is a 10 to 12 inch rainbow with tattered fins and a dark almost black back.They all look the same, as if they were cranked out by an assembly line. The fins are tattered because they grow up packed into a concrete pen where their fins rub against the walls and each other. The hatchery fish also tend to nip each others fins. Probably out of irritation or maybe lack of anything else to do. Their backs are black because the have no way to get out of the sun and fish skin reacts to strong sunlight just like human skin does – increased melanin, or in other words, a suntan. Darryl Hayashida
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As far as a hatrchery fish goes, if the fish was raised in a WD negative hatchery (or born in the wild) and placed in a WD positive stream it would never exhibit signs of WD but could carry millions of spores until its death. But a fish raised in a "lightly infected" WD positve hatchery may only be exposed to a few spores, at which time the fish becomes immune to WD, and the spore load never increases. Which fish should is the healthiest? In the end it will be the hatchery raised WD exposed fish that has the best chance of survival and passing on resistance to its offspring. regards, Mike
Now, Mike. Building strawmen arguments and then knocking them down is a crude and not very supportable method of proving your point. Yes, if I accept that only the two scenarios you’ve outlined exist, your choice is superior. However, it is possible that a wild trout, or one introduced from a hatchery, may inhabit a "lightly infected" WD positive stream and provide an immunity to WD that is commensurate with your hypothetical Hatchery Fish. After all, this is Mother Nature we’re discussing here. She’s anything but linear! I believe that hatcheries have their place, as do wild runs. I believe that catch and release is a tools, and should be used with an awareness of the appropriate application of that tool and its potential short-comings. I believe Flyfishing, much like Monday Night Football, has become much too popular, and in its popularity has suffered from many individuals trying to define it to fit into their paradigm. It’s still just fishing. Tight Lines, Charley
Response:
No, because if you have just caught a fish that appears healthy, then it either has WD or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t then put it back. If it does, then it might be one of the few fish that are resistant to WD, and if it lives to reproduce, the resistance will be passed on to its offspring. Of course, this applies to wild fish. If it’s a hatchery fish, keep it.
There is absolutely no way to tell if a fish has WD or not, except for the very young fish who were exposed before ther cartilage had formed. These young fish will have deformed spines, heads, and blackened tails. However they do not live very long as they are easy prey, poor competitors, or die as a result of WD. On the other hand an older fish that is exposed my carry millions of spores and never show any signs. When they die they release these spores that invade the Tubifex worm (intermediate host) that later releases the spores that harm the very young fish. As far as a hatrchery fish goes, if the fish was raised in a WD negative hatchery (or born in the wild) and placed in a WD positive stream it would never exhibit signs of WD but could carry millions of spores until its death. But a fish raised in a "lightly infected" WD positve hatchery may only be exposed to a few spores, at which time the fish becomes immune to WD, and the spore load never increases. Which fish should is the healthiest? In the end it will be the hatchery raised WD exposed fish that has the best chance of survival and passing on resistance to its offspring. regards, Mike
Response:
<snip A recent study on the Colorado River states:..Trout sampled exhibited higher symptoms of both whirling disease and gas bubble traum=
a in stream sections with high saturation levels than those with lower saturation levels. <snip What exactly is gas bubble trauma? Is this an effect in aerated hydraulics on ??? gills, body surface, or ???? Please elucidate. Jon
Response:
One of the stages in the WD parasites’ life is in the tubifex worm. These worms live in the mud on the bottom of a river. A large elevation drop generally means faster water, and no mud accumulation. No mud, no worms, no place for the WD parasite to accumulate. Also faster water means a dead rotting WD infested carcass doesn’t go to the bottom to spread it’s spores. It gets swept away. Does this latter posit a positive argument for catch and kill ? TimW
No, because if you have just caught a fish that appears healthy, then it either has WD or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t then put it back. If it does, then it might be one of the few fish that are resistant to WD, and if it lives to reproduce, the resistance will be passed on to its offspring. Of course, this applies to wild fish. If it’s a hatchery fish, keep it. Darryl Hayashida
Response:
Just my $0.02, and I expect I’ll get a flame or two for this. Rainbows are native to Pacific coast streams. Sure they grow to a large size, but anytime you transplant fish from their place of origin to a new area, you’re taking a big risk. Not only are the organisms not adapted to all the vagaraties of the new habiat, even if the populations do thrive, but the other organisms in the new habitat are also not adapted to the imported species. Cutthroats are native to the Rocky Mountain streams. They evolved there, in consort with all of the other organisms in the ecosystem. It would make more sense to revitalize the cutthroat populations, especially with all of their interesting subspecies, than to keep relying on alien species. Likewise I would rather see more brook trout in eastern streams. Jesse M. Purvis
Response:
I have a few questions about whirling disease I hope someone knowledgeable can answer. Any realistic estimates on how long it would take a river that has been hit hard by the disease (the Madison for example) to recover naturally without stocking? Years? Decades? Never? Will the parasite die off after a period with no juvenile rainbows, making the river suitable for repopulation? Can a significant portion of fry survive to sexual maturity, or does reproduction halt completely? It seems to me that by the time the river recovers to a point that it is suitable for a rainbow population again that the surviving trout, if any, would be too old to spawn. Are steelhead susceptible? Let’s suppose that it is only a matter of time before all the wild rainbow fisheries in the west are affected. While it is awful to imagine, it seems realistic unless we find a way to kill the parasite. After all, rivers that are not stocked have been infected, so it is spreading somehow. Most states will reestablish rainbow populations by stocking hatchery-raised fish or establish populations of other species to replace the lost rainbows, correct? Any guesses on how long Montana’s policy of not stocking wild rivers will last when their tourist industry takes such a hit? On the same subject, what would be Idaho’s reaction if/when the Henry’s Fork is hit. I hope this initiates some useful discussion. -al
Response:
These responses are part fact and part my own distilled opinion. However, I did attend the WD conference in Denver back in Feb, and have read alot of the papers that were discussed there, so I think I’m reasonably well-informed. I have a few questions about whirling disease I hope someone knowledgeable can answer. Any realistic estimates on how long it would take a river that has been hit hard by the disease (the Madison for example) to recover naturally without stocking? Years? Decades? Never?
No one knows – can be any of the above. Depends on what you mean by recover, and on what it is recovering from. However, keep reading, the news isn’t that bad. Will the parasite die off after a period with no juvenile rainbows, making the river suitable for repopulation?
Apparently, yes. Utah killed off a river counting on this. CA has seen watersheds go from testing positive for WD to negative over several years, too. Can a significant portion of fry survive to sexual maturity, or does reproduction halt completely? It
Yes, a significant portion can survive. It depends on how saturated the water is with WD; and that depends on river conditions. My bet is that many rivers in the west will not support heavy concentrations of WD (ie, enough to drastically affect the rainbow population). Most hard-hit waters are tailwaters — no runoff, constant temps, and lots of moss and mud for tubifex worms (the other host). seems to me that by the time the river recovers to a point that it is suitable for a rainbow population again that the surviving trout, if any, would be too old to spawn.
I am pretty sure that fish spawn all of their adult life. In fact, the older and bigger they are, the more eggs they produce. They just keep getting better! Are steelhead susceptible?
Probably. Let’s suppose that it is only a matter of time before all the wild rainbow fisheries in the west are affected. While it is awful to imagine, it seems realistic unless we find a way to kill the parasite. After all, rivers that are not stocked have been infected, so it is spreading somehow.
Yeah, but don’t worry about it. I don’t think it’ll spread as fast as in the past, and, as above, there are many rivers that probably won’t see population crashes, due to the nature of the river itself. Besides, the rainbow isn’t native in much of the west anyways. Its just the CA$H fish — maybe ol’ T-Bone will get his wish of less-crowded waters, after all. Most states will reestablish rainbow populations by stocking hatchery-raised fish or establish populations of other species to replace the lost rainbows, correct? Any guesses on how long Montana’s policy of not stocking wild rivers will last when their tourist industry takes such a hit? On the same subject, what would be Idaho’s reaction if/when the Henry’s Fork is hit.
I don’t think they’ll need to stock. Remember, the Madison was already over 50% browns, so its not like there’s no fish left. Probably Henry’s Fork too. But who knows, I could be wrong. There are many states and many rivers already infected. Overall, it has been very few rivers that have seen population crashes. And these rivers ARE NOT NATURAL. The upper Colorado, the Madison, others in Colorado, do not have natural flows. I don’t think WD will devastate the west. Jon.
Response:
Question:
Someone recommended Randall Kaufman’s books as good reference material for a beginner. I was under the impression that he has a book with both dry and wet flys. Does anyone know if such a book exists (it doesn’t, according to my local library)? I would be interested in knowing the title of any/all books by Mr. Kaufman. Tim Obrey/ME
Response:
Someone recommended Randall Kaufman’s books as good reference material for a beginner. I was under the impression that he has a book with both dry and wet flys. Does anyone know if such a book exists (it doesn’t, according to my local library)? I would be interested in knowing the title of any/all books by Mr. Kaufman.
Hi Tim, Kauffman’s fly tying books are each devoted exclusively to either dries or nymphs – your local library is correct. He is the author of a pattern "directory" that includes both dries and nymphs entitled "Fly Patterns of Umpqua Feather Merchants". Best, Alan. Alan Barnard Kiene’s Fly Shop Sacramento, California WWW Fly Tyer http://www.ns.net/~barnard
Response:
Tim, Try www.amazon.com — Donn Westervelt 72633,342 CIS
Response:
: Someone recommended Randall Kaufman’s books as good reference material for a : beginner. I was under the impression that he has a book with both dry and wet : flys. Does anyone know if such a book exists (it doesn’t, according to my : local library)? I would be interested in knowing the title of any/all books by : Mr. Kaufman. Yup. He has a new dry fly book, and a revised version of his nymph book. When I had to choose two (ONLY TWO) books on tying flies, to learn from, these were the two. The illustrations are in color, and are very clear…with tricky points clearly described. He discusses standard techniques fully. The patterns are laid out in a "progressive" order so that you can learn quite a bit by tying each pattern in order (I’m about 2/3 of the way through both books). Or you can jump around to your favorite pattern. There’s a pattern directory in the back, listing many patterns not covered in the text WITH color PICTURES. Also, each chapter has a little one or two page story having something to do with that pattern. ALSO, there are excellent discussions of materials and tools. I now own FIVE books on fly tying: Talleur’s intro book (for my son), two books of patterns, and Kaufman’s two newer books. I strongly recommend these two books for anyone learning to tie flies. — Laboratory for Applied Logic Dept. of Computer Science University of Idaho www: http://www.cs.uidaho.edu/~foster —–BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK—– Version: 2.6.2 mQCNAzDtvLEAAAEEAKAC21G2Be0K0DMgjLpxrwLmsYfCz8rWcfgyABjr3Ryfk1dO nV7fFFpUF3xohR7die+/B2V9oqRQzTLeSF2ECKlsTY/yUyw2kn+P2ju1umh4Fwzd cVTvc+H69q1+Ft3kmw/PE0Pan+g0PUGGJ43stw3q4OgBHdixbRd/f9giJFDxAAUR tCZKYW1lcyBBLiBGb3N0ZXIgPGZvc3RlckBjcy51aWRhaG8uZWR1PokAlQMFEDD8 ReEXf3/YIiRQ8QEBFrAD/2AFuRWcD/3MENC3qJMC/Or1qxknjkK7Uv+TDf2LHPOY GHBbG9PyWuXQ8of0Dd+JYwf/tzlO9Yk1s1zTdikfriak21FW0bCokxDIhA3myppZ IZDWVA9CyvDYHuP5Ii1NkBvocab813JzDLZA+0iVN5sebGb9zSXR4Za47hlriHeP =RDHK —–END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK—–
Response:
Someone recommended Randall Kaufman’s books as good reference material for a beginner. I was under the impression that he has a book with both dry and wet flys. Does anyone know if such a book exists (it doesn’t, according to my local library)? I would be interested in knowing the title of any/all books by Mr. Kaufman. Tim Obrey/ME
Here’s a list of Randall Kaufmann’s books (I think it’s complete): American Nymph Fly Tying Manual (1975) Bonefishing with a Fly (1992) *The Fly Tyers Nymph Manual (1986) *Tying Dry Flies (1992) (there is also a revised edition) *Tying Nymphs (1992) *= in-print Andy A. M. Rapach–Angling Books Rare, Collectible & Used Angling Books Bought and Sold <A HREF="http://www.westol.com/~andmr/fishbks"</A
Response:
Randall Kaufmann has authored or coauthored several books covering fly tying and fly fishing for a variety of species. I think two books best suited for the beginning or advanced tyer are; Tying Nymphs, and Tying Dries. Randall is an excellent tier or tyer and has a gift of concise, easily understood writing. Vic’s Fly-By-Night Too much time spent tying Not enough fishing
Response:
I got my first book on fly tying from the Federation of Fly Fishers. It is called an Introduction to Fly Tying by Al Beatty and Bob Lay. It only cost $2.00 plus S&H. I have since purchased a couple of videos by Al and they were really detailed. I don’t have his phone number but he often posts to this group. Stumbling along the fly fishing stream Ed
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Someone recommended Randall Kaufman’s books as good reference material for a beginner. I was under the impression that he has a book with both dry and wet flys. Does anyone know if such a book exists (it doesn’t, according to my local library)? I would be interested in knowing the title of any/all books by Mr. Kaufman. Tim Obrey/ME Here’s a list of Randall Kaufmann’s books (I think it’s complete): American Nymph Fly Tying Manual (1975) Bonefishing with a Fly (1992) *The Fly Tyers Nymph Manual (1986) *Tying Dry Flies (1992) (there is also a revised edition) *Tying Nymphs (1992) *= in-print Andy A. M. Rapach–Angling Books Rare, Collectible & Used Angling Books Bought and Sold <A HREF="http://www.westol.com/~andmr/fishbks"</A
Add to the list: Lake Fishing with a Fly (1984) (co-authored with Ron Cordes) Fly Patterns of Umpqua Feather Merchants (1995) Tight lines Jay Whitworth
Response:
