Big Trout Little Trout

Littoral · Post by **Littoral** » October 30th, 2003, 4:02 pm

A few questions and hypotheses keep me fishing but lately the only fishing I've been able to do is in my head. Here's my "report".
Trout, where are the big ones?
I've been wondering how much they migrate/move locally. Is it east/west or is it mostly north south seasonally in and out of creeks? The fishing issue here is "why what" tactics work in some areas and not as well in others. How "different" are the sub-populations?
Also, what are the differences in size class in different areas?
I found a research paper recently that helps address some of these questions. The study focused on water west of the Big Bend but there are clues that can be extrapolated further east.
The bays studied west to east are:
Perdido, Pensacola, Choctawhatchee, St. Andrew, St Joe and Apalachicola
Results:
Females grow faster than males
St Joe and Perdido fish grew the fastest and largest (in that order)
St Andrews and Apalach fish grew the slowest and smallest (in that order)
There was evidence (genetic) of estuary specific growth characteristics and no evidence of a geographic trend east/west.
So yes, when they move itâ€™s â€œnorth/southâ€

Post by **Chalk** » October 30th, 2003, 4:30 pm

I'm glad we could help

Ah, the colloquy of trout ----

St Joe and Perdido fish grew the fastest and largest (in that order), take on that would be ideal locations grow the perfect specimens at a better than average rate.

Cannot speak to the Peridio, but in my mind (small one) the St Joe provides all the optimum ingredients needed for growth. Water clarity, temperature and structure, an ideal environment for a food chain are achieved. Not to mention the affects of man are present in St Joe, but not as predominantly as in St Andrews.

Interestingâ€¦will think on it some more

Post by **Cranfield** » October 30th, 2003, 4:43 pm

Is it relevant that rivers empty into Apalach Bay, but not St Joe Bay ?

Littoral · Post by **Littoral** » October 30th, 2003, 5:20 pm

Cran, The paper discusses possible causative factors that include habitat which would factor into your question about rivers feeding the bays. They also consider gene exchange and fishing pressure but those factors were not a focus of the study. The intracoastal does enter into St Joe but currents carry most of the water & nutrients out of the bay. Apalch is much larger and real turbid etc. What does all this mean? The variables are endless.

By the way, they also mention that in the Apalch area the fishermen have a long lineage of expertise that passes on from generation to generation. The upshot of such tradition is reflected in the quality of the equipment they use. The conclusion is, given that they use such superior equipment, more of the larger fish are caught. Thatâ€™s why the trout are smaller in Apalachicola Bay. As to the equipment they use, they didnâ€™t specify any brand names so I guess weâ€™ll just have to speculate on that.

Post by **Cranfield** » October 30th, 2003, 5:44 pm

Comments relating to the skill of the Apalach Bay fishermen, would suggest a commercial fishing activity, rather than recreational.
Are speckled trout fished for commercially ?

In Europe, rivers carrying farm fertilizers and chemicals, emptying into estuaries, have been blamed for reduced fish numbers and quality.
I wondered if Apalch Bay, was suffering a similar fate.

Post by **Ken K** » October 30th, 2003, 6:39 pm

I trout fish in two areas: St. Andrews Bay and the flats between Panacea and the Aucilla. I feel certain that I don't fish either area enough to make my findings anything more than anecdotal. However, I have consistently caught more and bigger trout out of St. Andrews than I have the waters east and west of St. Marks.

EddieJoe · Post by **EddieJoe** » October 30th, 2003, 7:57 pm

Cran:

Yes, they are, and that might have something to do with the smaller size around Apalach, where commercial boys live and work.

EJ

Post by **CSMarine** » October 31st, 2003, 8:51 am

I don't think the net ban has been in effect long enough to cause the fish population to rebound to 100%. I've seen over and over again from the time I was a small boy, mullet fishermen catching hundereds of pounds of "by product" meaning Trout and Reds in a night of fishing. This is still going on in some places. Chalk posted a picture of one net bust close to St. Marks not that long ago. Could this be still another factor?

Littoral · Post by **Littoral** » October 31st, 2003, 1:25 pm

My original point about Apalach expertise was really a cryptic dig at Cranfield's obsession with Shimano.

Ken, I'm surprised about your experience between St Andrews and east of Panacea. The study was based out of the NMFS lab in St Andrews and those guys fish that bay religously. I've spoken with them variously and their anecdotal comparisons are consistent with the study. My own experience in St Andrews is limited (~25 trips) but I've not done real well there on trout so I don't have much to go on. The whole question does deal with growth rates -not abundance. I know I've caught big trout east and west so they're there -maybe just not as many. I expect big trout in St Joe but I'm more confident about catching big ones out of the Aucilla. I'm least confident on the west flats but my biggest (30 inches) came out of the East River (on a bull minnow).

Thoughts about commercial fishing around Apalch make sense. The study was done from 94 to 96. This is early after the net ban so the assertion about lingering (and continued) effects of netting are reasonable. The ability to fish an area effectively is also effected by water clarity. In St. Joe for example, most people can locate good habitat because the water is clear. This is a lot more difficult in areas with turbid or colored water. This variable increases the potential impact of recreational fishing in different areas.
The possibilities are endless and is an example of why management decisions are so difficult.

Post by **CSMarine** » October 31st, 2003, 2:15 pm

So what your saying Lit. is that the area fished by folks using primarly Shimano reels, seem to produce more than those areas fished by folks who use Daiwa. If so, how would you explain the large harvest of Trout taken from the Keaton area by folks who use cheap Penn equipment?

Littoral · Post by **Littoral** » October 31st, 2003, 3:15 pm

CS, you asked how Iâ€™d explain the large harvest taken around Keaton. I confess Iâ€™ve never fished east of Hickory Mound but itâ€™s on my list.
Anyway, in the paper Iâ€™ve cited it's a quality, not quantity question.
Penn reels? We go way back. Iâ€™m ok with the graphite ones but my standby reels are my old metal Penn ultra lights. That occasionally even includes my green one because I canâ€™t stand to see it sitting on the shelf.
Thatâ€™s the best reel Iâ€™ve ever had.

Post by **CSMarine** » October 31st, 2003, 3:25 pm

I know they are graphite reinforced, but so far I have no complaints with the Penn Powergraphs III that I own.
I crossed my words on Keaton. Meant to ask how to explain the harvest of large Trout there. Not the large harvest. As I mentioned in another post, A friend of mine caught a 31" 7 1/2 pound speck there last weekend. It's fairly common to catch trout over 25" at Keaton.

Post by **Cranfield** » October 31st, 2003, 4:08 pm

As one can assume the trout are all of the same species and not a variety of sub-species.
Then the only things affecting their size is, water and food quality, plus the "time" to grow bigger.
Of course, if the food and water quality is excellent, then the "time" needed is greatly reduced.

I don,t think "upstream" washings, can be totally ignored.

Post by **Ken K** » October 31st, 2003, 4:38 pm

I don't think that is a safe assumption to make, Cranfield. There can be a good deal of genetic difference between geographically seperated members of the same species.

Post by **Cranfield** » October 31st, 2003, 5:55 pm

Then surely, that would make them sub species.

If they are genetically the same.
The influences on their growth and longevity, would be the same.