Presidents Message from 1974
Well, Just about the time I thought I was about the worst weather forecaster in the world, the weatherman finally came through, so instead of apologizing, I can quote the last paragraph for march message, Namely:
“——Soon the weather should be warming, and it will once again be possible to enjoy our sport without first donning our long-johns. So tie up a few flies, dig out that tackle, call a buddy and plan a trip.”
Our club does have a serious side, but it is far from all serious. Basically, we are a club of fishermen, and fishermen like to fish. As I hear the news and read my paper tonight, the good news is that more gasoline is predicted to be available ty the time our “summer season” really gets in full swing, and we may shortly find gasoline available on Sunday again. Even if there is no appreciable let-up, most of us live where there is some good water wishing a “gas-tank” distance too home. For some, it may involve experimenting with taking of different species on a fly, but that too could be adventure in itself.
Having now put you at your ease, I’m going to ask youth do something (you knew there’d be a tact, didn’t you?) If you’ve never done so before, take a look at the publication that you are now reading. It’s great, but if you really look at it, you will realize that putting it together is one of the toughest jobs in the club. Our editor needs help, So when you develop that fantastic new fly pattern, when you find that great stretch of stream, when you discover the method of taking a new species on a fly, or even when you read something that you think would be of interest to your fellow fly fishermen, drop a line to our editor Peggy Nelson, at the address on the letterhead. She will appreciate it, and so will your fellow fly fishermen.
Go get’ed
Charles Coleman
The Kings River has been the focus of the club since the club was formed in 1961. The following written by member Chuck Coleman appeared in the June 1970 edition of the Fly Dope.
The Kings River—Can It Be Rehabilitated?
Having fished the Kings River for the past 38 years, I can offer assurances that the Kings was, and could be again, one of the prime trout streams in California. At present, however, the Kings, over much of its length, is less than mediocre.
At the time this writer first fished this beautiful river, it flowed unfettered, except for an occasional low level, low elevation diversion structure, for its entire length. A rough, brawling stream with varying water flows and diverse types of stream bed, the Kings was home to a highly satisfactory number of trout. Predominately a rainbow fishery, the water in certain areas also supported a sizable number of brown trout. Smallmouth bass furnished some fantastic angling in the lower reaches of the river. Also present were trash fish, hardheads, squawfish, and suckers. The ratio of rough fish to desirable species was kept in balance, before man’s tampering, by natural factors, water temperatures, topography, and competition. Food was adequately abundant in the form of mayfly, caddis, stonefly, and a variety of midge species. Aquatic insect life found a favorable habitat on the long gravel and cobblestone riffles that are so much a part of this river.
All of these conditions suffered a massive setback with the building of Pine Flat Dam. The reservoir that formed behind the dam inundated all of the smallmouth water. Valuable low level spawning areas were silted up and ruined. The lake itself became an instant incubator for an exploding population of rough fish. Before a desirable fishery could be established the trash fish were well entrenched. No method has been found, at this writing, to correct this imbalance and eradicate these pests. The lake is too large and too deep to be chemically treated. The trash fish population is too well established to readily relinquish its domain to any planted game predator. The situation, consequently, continues to deteriorate.
One of the prime factors of this worsening condition is the unrestricted, annual spawning runs that this horde of pests subjects the river to. Each year, starting in February, the migration begins with the suckers. These aquatic vacuum cleaners literally sweep the stream bed clean of aquatic insect life. After their passage, the resident trout population must either leave or starve. Following the suckers come the hardheads and squawfish in that order. With the river almost devoid of insect life these cannibals of the minnow family turn to run-of-the-year trout for food. The small trout that have avoided starvation are soon gobbled up by the invaders.
For several weeks following the passage of the rough fish, large sections of the river lay barren. At about the time that some small recovery begins in the river the reverse run starts. The undesirables begin to drift downstream on their way back to the reservoir. The recovering insects and the newly hatched fingerling trout are again subjected to extreme pressure. Little, if any, desirable forms of life can survive these two onslaughts.
There is an answer but correction will take time, effort and money. Next month some of the possibilities will be explored in the Fly Dope.
The Kings River—Can It Be Rehabilitated? Pt. 2
The Kings River—Can It Be Rehabilitated? Part 2
In last months fly dope we talked of the Kings River and it’s ills. This month some of the possible solutions will be discussed.
Over the years, as some of us have watched, the accelerating decline of this great river, many suggestions, for rehabilitation, have been offered. Some of these recommendations have seemed impractical, some have been attempted, none have shown the hoped for results.
In 1961 FFFC succeeded in an attempt to have a five mile section of the river (Garnet Dike campground upstream to Rough Creek) set aside for “fly fishing only” with a three fish limit. It was hoped that under a program of “catch and release” angling and reduced pressure the trout fishery could and would make a natural come- back. While a definite improvement has been noted, the results are less than expected. Poaching, due to lack of enforcement, has siphoned off a great number of the spawning rainbow. Lack of aquatic insect life, caused by the fantastic runs of the rough fish, has caused grave food problems. Predaceous attacks by the adult pests have depleted the yearly hatch of trout fingerling. These and other factors have had a very adverse effect on the rebuilding of this trout fishery.
Chemical treatment has been considered as a solution but has been, for the most part, rejected. With no way of blocking the runs of the undesirable fish it is felt that the trash fish would re-infest the water before the trout fishery could be re- established. The inaccessibility of much of this water would preclude the possibility of immediate restocking. With chemical treatment the existing stock of wild rainbow trout would be wiped out. Any restocking would, of necessity, be from domestic strains. It is highly doubtful that this would be desirable.
Brown trout, in limited numbers, have been present in these waters for many, many years. The inclination or ability, of this stock, to establish a significant brown trout fishery, however, has been lacking. Even before the population explosion of the trash fish the browns were few and far between. There was a persistent belief on the part of some of the angling fraternity, however, that the browns would be better able to withstand the pressure from the pests than would the rainbows. As a result of this belief the DFG planted several thou- sand brown trout fingerlings in these waters in the late fall of 1968 and early 1969. It will be at least another year, and possibly two, before any in depth evaluation of this planting can be made.
It is pretty generally conceded that the only truly effective solution would be a permanent barrier and fishway. The advantages of a properly designed barrier would be numerous. If the river was closed to fish traffic at the proper time of the year, when all but a few resident undesirables had returned to the reservoir, no chemical treatment would be necessary. This would save and utilize the existing stock of wild rainbow. The ganging up of the trash fish immediately below the barrier, during the spawning runs, would make possible a program of rough fish eradication. Since the suckers, hardheads, and squawfish usually make their run ahead of any of the game fish chemical treatment barrier on year after year would make heavy inroads on the numbers of these pests. Another valuable asset of a barrier would be the chance to evaluate the results of the exotic types of rainbow plants now being made in Pine Flat reservoir. A fish ladder and trap, built as an integral part of the structure would be invaluable as a counting, tagging and stripping station. Information that could be used throughout the industry would be easily obtainable.
Recognition of the factors inherent in this problem is not difficult. The measures necessary for correctment are also obvious. Implementation of these measures, however, will not be easy. Time, effort and a considerable amount of money will be needed before progress can be made. The situation is not hopeless however. Money, from several sources, could be made available if need can be proven and enough pressure can be brought to bear.
Several solid rock ledges, spanning the entire width of the river, would simplify the engineering of such a structure. Much of the materials needed (sand, gravel and rock) are already on site. Access roads on both sides of the river would alleviate the transportation problem. From a physical stand point no great problems present themselves.
Financing should also be relatively easy but it won’t be. The fact remains, however, that even in the face of tight money $8 million will be spent for recreational facilities on and around the new Don Pedro reservoir. Six million dollars is currently allotted to the area around the new lake while $2 million will be spent along the first few miles of river below the dam. Keep in mind that this will, for the most part, be public money and compare it with the estimated $350,000 that would be needed to rehabilitate many, many miles of prime trout streams.
The cooperation of many agencies would be necessary in the planning of such a project. Many clubs and organizations would have to join forces to get the ball rolling. The entire public, anglers, conservationists, outdoorsmen, and business would reap the harvest.
This was the original purpose for which FFFC was formed. The goal should be kept in sight by the formation of a strong committee to investigate all aspects of the problem and the solution.
CNC