[fishpro]

Originally Posted by steelhead

Thank you Fishpro, i like your response and your views.


I just think, if we have the hybridization as we do on the rivers of cutts and bows, cuttbows, and with regs preventing the take of smaller trout, both bows and cutts, allowing those fish to be of spawning size for that to happen, do you think that may happen in the future in this situation? We do know how invasive and destructive bows can be.


Once a fish has started spawning in a less than natural situation, the offspring return to the place of thier birth to procreate again. Now that the Bows have found a sweet spot to spawn after a couple of decades, could there be a chance of a higher recruitment in the future for this specie? Perhaps hybridization also?

So many tangents to consider for these lakes. Especially since they already have self-sustaining and multiple species.

Now, if they were void of fish or only had one specie to consider (cutts), I would be for the new regs. I would help the cause actually. But, as we have seen with the ( I know its a different specie but they are not naturally a lake spawner) Walleye spawning in unnatural settings and thier proliferation to the point of noticable decline of other species, do you think that situation may happen in K lake? We changed the regs to allow walleyes to reach spawning age. If we do that for a lake that holds rainbows, is there a possible chance they may take over?


Thanks for your input. I dont agree with some of it, but some I do. I just hate to see an experiment go bad like it has in many many situations in this province and, well, even the states that hug the east side of the divide like us.


STEELHEAD

Your point about the hybridization could happen, but at the same time I don't think it is a huge concern. There are a few reasons I feel this.

Like I said, I believe that there are very few people who target the rainbows in the lower lake. Hence the numbers are primarly limited by the spawning habitat in this lake, and not by fishermen. As of right now, both rainbow and cutt populations in the lake are maintained only through spawning, I don't think there is the same amount of stocking as in the upper lake. What this means is that fishermen take very few rainbows from the lower lake and hence offering the proposed protection will not significantly affect the number of rainbows. On the other hand, we will be able to increase the number of cutthroats through stocking.

The upper lake is a different situation though. As far as I know there is no spawning by the rainbows here simply due to a lack of appropriate spawning habitat. There will eventually come a day when the rainbows from previous stockings have died off, it will become a cutthroat and bull trout lake. It is nearly to that point now.

As for hybridization, I don't think we need to worry the same way as on the rivers. I'm not saying it won't happen, but rather it probably won't cause problems as in river systems. The main reason for this is the limited spawning as mentioned before. Furthermore, if there are a few rainbows and cuttbows after 20 years, I don't think this is a huge concern for fishermen of biologists. The reason for this is that the cutthroats in the lakes will not be a native population, such as what we have in the rivers where rainbows have taken over and diluted the gene pool and left no pure strain native cutts. The stocking of cutthroats and bull trout is to return the lakes to a more natural state, but it will never be a true native population. I think that what we would eventually see is a lake with numerous bulls and cutts, and then every now and then you would hook a large rainbow that causes your reel to scream.

I do not believe that these regulations will enable rainbows to completely take over the lake(s), especially with large amounts of cutthroats being stocked on an annual basis.