Oh!
So while camping the other day, we have countless mule deer just casually grazing throughout the grounds.
At daybreak the next morning I hear this weird abrupt clicking sound. Poke my head outside the tent to see what it is: the colliding of antlers on two mature bucks locked in battle, not 10 feet away.
The Great Outdoors
Re: The Great Outdoors
Sorry I didn’t comment the first time around.TraditionKU wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:58 am state record golden trout trout just caught by a teenager
guess i’ll have to start fishing some high mountain lakes
Wasn’t the record like less than two pounds? Goldens are gorgeous, and a worthy candidate for any fisherman’s bucket list, but still a bummer they don’t get bigger.
Either way, “trophy” is relative in fishing, and I think a healthy golden out of an alpine lake is as good a candidate as any.
Alpine lake fishing is some of the most unique and most gorgeous of any outdoor venture. I’d credit the opportunity to pursue as much as among thee deciding factors in my decision to move out west.
-
Deleted User 89
Re: The Great Outdoors
https://www.google.com/amp/s/fox13now.c ... ecord/amp/ousdahl wrote: ↑Mon Oct 28, 2019 2:37 pmSorry I didn’t comment the first time around.TraditionKU wrote: ↑Sat Oct 19, 2019 11:58 am state record golden trout trout just caught by a teenager
guess i’ll have to start fishing some high mountain lakes
Wasn’t the record like less than two pounds? Goldens are gorgeous, and a worthy candidate for any fisherman’s bucket list, but still a bummer they don’t get bigger.
Either way, “trophy” is relative in fishing, and I think a healthy golden out of an alpine lake is as good a candidate as any.
Alpine lake fishing is some of the most unique and most gorgeous of any outdoor venture. I’d credit the opportunity to pursue as much as among thee deciding factors in my decision to move out west.
not even 2 lbs...
handsome fish though
Re: The Great Outdoors
I'm unemployed, and overcaffeinated, and Illy has so kindly encouraged me to pursue my writing career. So let's get typing!
They say truth is stranger than fiction or whatever, right? this may be no more apparent than in the natural world, which can surprise you over and over again. Two examples!
Example one: brook trout.
They're a gorgeous little fish, with dark olive bodies decorated by bright orange bellies and brilliant yellow and turquoise spots. (They're technically a char, with light spots on dark bodies, in contrast to their cousins the true trout, which have dark spots on light bodies.) They originate from the eastern Appalachia/Great Lakes regions, which, out west, technically makes them invasive.
They usually don't get big, with averages sizes maybe 6-8 inches, which makes them a generally less desirable sport fish than their cousins like browns and rainbows. Their reproductive habits are also aggressive, prone to overpopulating a water, and can multiply at a rate that stunts the population so averages sizes are even smaller yet. Indeed, a water full of brook trout left to their own devices will yield a population of fish featuring big adult-size heads on scrawny little 5-inch bodies. However, if there are bigger predatory fish like browns and rainbows also around, they'll keep smaller brookies in check.
so I was fishing the Colorado River along a stretch so completely fucked in the ass by Denver Water and other diversions that even less healthy and more compromised than the Fraser...whaaat?
Either way, give the fish credit, cuz there's still serviceable populations of browns sprinkled in with rainbows - at least serviceable enough to wanna fish it, and to make you wonder just how good the fishing could be if we humans could just let a river be a river. I digress.
So there's only browns and rainbows in this stretch, according to the department of wildlife's electroshock surveys, at least. No brookies reported. There's only smaller fish, too, cuz the diversions do things like reduce habitat and overall biomass, and increase water temps, so that fish just don't get the chance to get big. Brown or rainbow, I've never personally seen a fish out of this stretch bigger than maybe 15 inches.
So imagine my surprise when an absolute freak show trophy of a fish just swam right up to me. This fish was pushing an honest 20 inches, and fat. It was also in rough shape, with flesh missing from his tail and forehead. This isn't uncommon, especially in the fall, when the brooks and browns are spawning, and hormonal fish get so aggressive they can rip each other to bits. Being yuge, this old fish could have also simply been nearing the end of his time.
It was also acting peculiar. While most fish will flee a fisherman or any other disturbance in the water, this one swam right up to me, almost as if he actually wanted some apex predator to give it the ol' coup de grace. Given its size and the time of year, I assume it's a big old spawned out brown. But it looks too dark to be a brown. I take a closer look and realize it's a...brookie?!
This was the biggest trout I've ever seen in this stretch of river, and the biggest brook trout I've ever seen, anywhere. In a stretch of river that isn't even supposed to have brookies, nor big fish.
The state of CO has a "master angler" program, which recognizes trophy catches. If you can prove you caught a fish that qualifies, they'll send you a little patch to sew onto your fishing vest. It's like biker gang vest patches, except cooler, drunker, and far more badass. The trophy qualifying size for brook trout is 16 inches, and this one was pushing 20.
I thought about picking it up for a picture, except that it was so beat up. Besides, where's the fun of it if it's not an honest sporting catch? I coulda literally just scooped this confused geriatric old beast right up in my net, and that's just not the same.
Thus concludes example one of wild creatures defying the odds and alluding the biologists and proving yet again that life *Ian Malcolm voice* ...finds a way.
Now onto example two, cuz this one is one I've been even more excited to discuss!
They say truth is stranger than fiction or whatever, right? this may be no more apparent than in the natural world, which can surprise you over and over again. Two examples!
Example one: brook trout.
They're a gorgeous little fish, with dark olive bodies decorated by bright orange bellies and brilliant yellow and turquoise spots. (They're technically a char, with light spots on dark bodies, in contrast to their cousins the true trout, which have dark spots on light bodies.) They originate from the eastern Appalachia/Great Lakes regions, which, out west, technically makes them invasive.
They usually don't get big, with averages sizes maybe 6-8 inches, which makes them a generally less desirable sport fish than their cousins like browns and rainbows. Their reproductive habits are also aggressive, prone to overpopulating a water, and can multiply at a rate that stunts the population so averages sizes are even smaller yet. Indeed, a water full of brook trout left to their own devices will yield a population of fish featuring big adult-size heads on scrawny little 5-inch bodies. However, if there are bigger predatory fish like browns and rainbows also around, they'll keep smaller brookies in check.
so I was fishing the Colorado River along a stretch so completely fucked in the ass by Denver Water and other diversions that even less healthy and more compromised than the Fraser...whaaat?
Either way, give the fish credit, cuz there's still serviceable populations of browns sprinkled in with rainbows - at least serviceable enough to wanna fish it, and to make you wonder just how good the fishing could be if we humans could just let a river be a river. I digress.
So there's only browns and rainbows in this stretch, according to the department of wildlife's electroshock surveys, at least. No brookies reported. There's only smaller fish, too, cuz the diversions do things like reduce habitat and overall biomass, and increase water temps, so that fish just don't get the chance to get big. Brown or rainbow, I've never personally seen a fish out of this stretch bigger than maybe 15 inches.
So imagine my surprise when an absolute freak show trophy of a fish just swam right up to me. This fish was pushing an honest 20 inches, and fat. It was also in rough shape, with flesh missing from his tail and forehead. This isn't uncommon, especially in the fall, when the brooks and browns are spawning, and hormonal fish get so aggressive they can rip each other to bits. Being yuge, this old fish could have also simply been nearing the end of his time.
It was also acting peculiar. While most fish will flee a fisherman or any other disturbance in the water, this one swam right up to me, almost as if he actually wanted some apex predator to give it the ol' coup de grace. Given its size and the time of year, I assume it's a big old spawned out brown. But it looks too dark to be a brown. I take a closer look and realize it's a...brookie?!
This was the biggest trout I've ever seen in this stretch of river, and the biggest brook trout I've ever seen, anywhere. In a stretch of river that isn't even supposed to have brookies, nor big fish.
The state of CO has a "master angler" program, which recognizes trophy catches. If you can prove you caught a fish that qualifies, they'll send you a little patch to sew onto your fishing vest. It's like biker gang vest patches, except cooler, drunker, and far more badass. The trophy qualifying size for brook trout is 16 inches, and this one was pushing 20.
I thought about picking it up for a picture, except that it was so beat up. Besides, where's the fun of it if it's not an honest sporting catch? I coulda literally just scooped this confused geriatric old beast right up in my net, and that's just not the same.
Thus concludes example one of wild creatures defying the odds and alluding the biologists and proving yet again that life *Ian Malcolm voice* ...finds a way.
Now onto example two, cuz this one is one I've been even more excited to discuss!
Re: The Great Outdoors
example two: grizzly bears.
easily thee apex predator the lower 48, this majestic critter's range used to extend pretty much everywhere west of the Mississippi. The name "grizzly" itself could have come from the animal's grizzled fur, or simply from its grizzly disposition. Lewis and Clark and other explorer types recorded no shortage of horror stories about the grizzly. Even the scientific name, ursus horriblis, translates simply to "horrible bear."
(pro tip: if you're ever attached by a black bear, the grizzly's smaller, less aggressive, more ubiquitous cousin, fight back. Make the black bear think you aren't worth the effort. However, if you're ever attacked by a grizzly, the only chance you've got is to play dead...and pray. Fighting back only pisses them off more)
These beasts were notorious throughout western frontier communities. Ranchers in particular feared and hated them, as the bears would prey on livestock, and loosing one cow or sheep was considered economic disaster. Thus, the grizzlies had to go. Ranchers whined to federal land managers, who commissioned professional trappers and hunters to eliminate the grizzly.
As human settlement expanded across the west - spoiler alert! - the range and population of grizzlies decreased in a hurry. Nowadays, there are only like 1500 or so bears left in the lower 48, mostly in Yellowstone and Glacier parks, and northern WY/western MT/Idaho wilderness areas, and a wee handful apparently in North Cascades Park as well.
This is where the story gets real good: in Colorado, grizzlies used to roam aplenty, until human expansion took its toll. Finally, in 1952, a federal trapper killed what was reported to be the last grizzly in the state, and the animal was declared extirpated (extinct from an area). Ranchers rejoiced, and all them damn hippy save-the-animals liberal pussy types weren't even around yet to whine about it. A wildlife survey in the early 1970s confirmed no grizzlies left in the state.
Then, in 1979, on an elk hunt in the San Juan range of southwest CO, guide Ex Wiseman was trying to put his client on an elk when Wiseman was suddenly charged by a bear. The bear was on top of him, mauling him, when he managed to grab an arrow and jab it into the bear's neck, killing the bear.
(considering the motherfucker killed a fucking bear in hand-to-hand combat, who knows how Wiseman was able to even hike that far up into the mountains, with that enormous pair of balls dragging between his legs.)
So the department of wildlife studies the carcass and realizes, wait a minute! This bear is a grizzly. *cue dramatic music* and not only was it a grizzly, but it was a mama who had nursed cubs at some point! *more music*
So there's this whole mystique of grizzlies in Colorado, almost like Sasquatch, but with some empirical evidence to boot.
sorry Illy, long post, lemme start a new one to take the discussion more in depth.
easily thee apex predator the lower 48, this majestic critter's range used to extend pretty much everywhere west of the Mississippi. The name "grizzly" itself could have come from the animal's grizzled fur, or simply from its grizzly disposition. Lewis and Clark and other explorer types recorded no shortage of horror stories about the grizzly. Even the scientific name, ursus horriblis, translates simply to "horrible bear."
(pro tip: if you're ever attached by a black bear, the grizzly's smaller, less aggressive, more ubiquitous cousin, fight back. Make the black bear think you aren't worth the effort. However, if you're ever attacked by a grizzly, the only chance you've got is to play dead...and pray. Fighting back only pisses them off more)
These beasts were notorious throughout western frontier communities. Ranchers in particular feared and hated them, as the bears would prey on livestock, and loosing one cow or sheep was considered economic disaster. Thus, the grizzlies had to go. Ranchers whined to federal land managers, who commissioned professional trappers and hunters to eliminate the grizzly.
As human settlement expanded across the west - spoiler alert! - the range and population of grizzlies decreased in a hurry. Nowadays, there are only like 1500 or so bears left in the lower 48, mostly in Yellowstone and Glacier parks, and northern WY/western MT/Idaho wilderness areas, and a wee handful apparently in North Cascades Park as well.
This is where the story gets real good: in Colorado, grizzlies used to roam aplenty, until human expansion took its toll. Finally, in 1952, a federal trapper killed what was reported to be the last grizzly in the state, and the animal was declared extirpated (extinct from an area). Ranchers rejoiced, and all them damn hippy save-the-animals liberal pussy types weren't even around yet to whine about it. A wildlife survey in the early 1970s confirmed no grizzlies left in the state.
Then, in 1979, on an elk hunt in the San Juan range of southwest CO, guide Ex Wiseman was trying to put his client on an elk when Wiseman was suddenly charged by a bear. The bear was on top of him, mauling him, when he managed to grab an arrow and jab it into the bear's neck, killing the bear.
(considering the motherfucker killed a fucking bear in hand-to-hand combat, who knows how Wiseman was able to even hike that far up into the mountains, with that enormous pair of balls dragging between his legs.)
So the department of wildlife studies the carcass and realizes, wait a minute! This bear is a grizzly. *cue dramatic music* and not only was it a grizzly, but it was a mama who had nursed cubs at some point! *more music*
So there's this whole mystique of grizzlies in Colorado, almost like Sasquatch, but with some empirical evidence to boot.
sorry Illy, long post, lemme start a new one to take the discussion more in depth.
Re: The Great Outdoors
so: could a population of apex predators as big and badass as a grizzly elude humans?
Perhaps the animal wandered down from WY or something, but considering this was down in the southwest corner of CO, at the very least this theory would make more sense if the animal was found on the northern end of the state.
Perhaps the animal was the result of some released pet/captive animal, or some rogue biologist's effort to reintroduce the creature.
Perhaps, maybe, the animal/s really did elude biologists, and through natural selection and shit have developed such a human-averse behavior that they can still exist in remote wilderness areas without going noticed. In Glacier Park, for example, radio-collared grizzlies are known to frequent cabins and vacation condos and such, even though they go completely unnoticed - no sightings, no damage, no tracks or scat or nothin.
Sure, but they totally go noticed at the same time - there's no shortage of stories, conspiracies, eyewitness accounts, fur and scat samples, giant footprints, out-of-focus photos, and other like totally legit evidence to support it.
Worth mentioning is that the department of wildlife, the forest service/BLM, and other land managers allegedly just don't want to admit a population. If there was a confirmed population then all these restrictive federal endangered species regulations would go into effect. After decades of bellyaching from ranchers, outfitters, loggers, miners, oilmen, and other public land users, the land managers simply don't want to deal with the shitstorm that would ensue from having to tell a bunch of 5th generation ranchers they're no longer allowed to graze their cattle in what is now protected habitat, and such.
(Speaking of shitstorm, endangered species regs are no joke. For instance, while Wiseman was laying in the hospital recovering from a long list of bear attack wounds, a federal wildlife officer came into his room and read him his Miranda rights.)
also worth mentioning is that black bears can still get big too, and can range in color from black to brown to blonde to cinnamon, which makes them easily mistaken for a griz. (I don't know how many times growing up in KS that an excited neighbor would mistake a coyote for a wolf, same idea).
By now it seems like somebody should come up with legit evidence - good game cam footage, or a specimen hit by a car, or mistaken for a black bear by a hunter, or a tourist who approached for a selfie and got mauled cuz how were y'all supposed to know wild animals could be dangerous, or simply dumpster diving through downtown Pagosa Springs or Durango or something.
what do you think?
Perhaps the animal wandered down from WY or something, but considering this was down in the southwest corner of CO, at the very least this theory would make more sense if the animal was found on the northern end of the state.
Perhaps the animal was the result of some released pet/captive animal, or some rogue biologist's effort to reintroduce the creature.
Perhaps, maybe, the animal/s really did elude biologists, and through natural selection and shit have developed such a human-averse behavior that they can still exist in remote wilderness areas without going noticed. In Glacier Park, for example, radio-collared grizzlies are known to frequent cabins and vacation condos and such, even though they go completely unnoticed - no sightings, no damage, no tracks or scat or nothin.
Sure, but they totally go noticed at the same time - there's no shortage of stories, conspiracies, eyewitness accounts, fur and scat samples, giant footprints, out-of-focus photos, and other like totally legit evidence to support it.
Worth mentioning is that the department of wildlife, the forest service/BLM, and other land managers allegedly just don't want to admit a population. If there was a confirmed population then all these restrictive federal endangered species regulations would go into effect. After decades of bellyaching from ranchers, outfitters, loggers, miners, oilmen, and other public land users, the land managers simply don't want to deal with the shitstorm that would ensue from having to tell a bunch of 5th generation ranchers they're no longer allowed to graze their cattle in what is now protected habitat, and such.
(Speaking of shitstorm, endangered species regs are no joke. For instance, while Wiseman was laying in the hospital recovering from a long list of bear attack wounds, a federal wildlife officer came into his room and read him his Miranda rights.)
also worth mentioning is that black bears can still get big too, and can range in color from black to brown to blonde to cinnamon, which makes them easily mistaken for a griz. (I don't know how many times growing up in KS that an excited neighbor would mistake a coyote for a wolf, same idea).
By now it seems like somebody should come up with legit evidence - good game cam footage, or a specimen hit by a car, or mistaken for a black bear by a hunter, or a tourist who approached for a selfie and got mauled cuz how were y'all supposed to know wild animals could be dangerous, or simply dumpster diving through downtown Pagosa Springs or Durango or something.
what do you think?
Re: The Great Outdoors
sorry bro, after another season of 60+ hour work weeks, I've used my new found free time to catch up on some reading.
If anyone else's curiosity has now too been piqued, I recommend a book called Ghost Grizzlies by David Petersen. It's this forensic investigation of sorts into grizzlies in CO, particularly in the San Juans. It's nonfiction, and it's a can't-put-it-down, total page-turner of an exciting read - assuming you're into this sorta thing, and assuming it's not too tl;dr.
-
Deleted User 89
Re: The Great Outdoors
i woulda netted it just for the picousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Oct 29, 2019 9:43 am I'm unemployed, and overcaffeinated, and Illy has so kindly encouraged me to pursue my writing career. So let's get typing!
They say truth is stranger than fiction or whatever, right? this may be no more apparent than in the natural world, which can surprise you over and over again. Two examples!
Example one: brook trout.
They're a gorgeous little fish, with dark olive bodies decorated by bright orange bellies and brilliant yellow and turquoise spots. (They're technically a char, with light spots on dark bodies, in contrast to their cousins the true trout, which have dark spots on light bodies.) They originate from the eastern Appalachia/Great Lakes regions, which, out west, technically makes them invasive.
They usually don't get big, with averages sizes maybe 6-8 inches, which makes them a generally less desirable sport fish than their cousins like browns and rainbows. Their reproductive habits are also aggressive, prone to overpopulating a water, and can multiply at a rate that stunts the population so averages sizes are even smaller yet. Indeed, a water full of brook trout left to their own devices will yield a population of fish featuring big adult-size heads on scrawny little 5-inch bodies. However, if there are bigger predatory fish like browns and rainbows also around, they'll keep smaller brookies in check.
so I was fishing the Colorado River along a stretch so completely fucked in the ass by Denver Water and other diversions that even less healthy and more compromised than the Fraser...whaaat?
Either way, give the fish credit, cuz there's still serviceable populations of browns sprinkled in with rainbows - at least serviceable enough to wanna fish it, and to make you wonder just how good the fishing could be if we humans could just let a river be a river. I digress.
So there's only browns and rainbows in this stretch, according to the department of wildlife's electroshock surveys, at least. No brookies reported. There's only smaller fish, too, cuz the diversions do things like reduce habitat and overall biomass, and increase water temps, so that fish just don't get the chance to get big. Brown or rainbow, I've never personally seen a fish out of this stretch bigger than maybe 15 inches.
So imagine my surprise when an absolute freak show trophy of a fish just swam right up to me. This fish was pushing an honest 20 inches, and fat. It was also in rough shape, with flesh missing from his tail and forehead. This isn't uncommon, especially in the fall, when the brooks and browns are spawning, and hormonal fish get so aggressive they can rip each other to bits. Being yuge, this old fish could have also simply been nearing the end of his time.
It was also acting peculiar. While most fish will flee a fisherman or any other disturbance in the water, this one swam right up to me, almost as if he actually wanted some apex predator to give it the ol' coup de grace. Given its size and the time of year, I assume it's a big old spawned out brown. But it looks too dark to be a brown. I take a closer look and realize it's a...brookie?!
This was the biggest trout I've ever seen in this stretch of river, and the biggest brook trout I've ever seen, anywhere. In a stretch of river that isn't even supposed to have brookies, nor big fish.
The state of CO has a "master angler" program, which recognizes trophy catches. If you can prove you caught a fish that qualifies, they'll send you a little patch to sew onto your fishing vest. It's like biker gang vest patches, except cooler, drunker, and far more badass. The trophy qualifying size for brook trout is 16 inches, and this one was pushing 20.
I thought about picking it up for a picture, except that it was so beat up. Besides, where's the fun of it if it's not an honest sporting catch? I coulda literally just scooped this confused geriatric old beast right up in my net, and that's just not the same.
Thus concludes example one of wild creatures defying the odds and alluding the biologists and proving yet again that life *Ian Malcolm voice* ...finds a way.
Now onto example two, cuz this one is one I've been even more excited to discuss!
Re: The Great Outdoors
There are rumors of Grizzlies moving into the northeast corner of oregon too in the eagle caps. And wolves, my god the wolves are everywhere now, decimating the deer and elk populations.
Just Ledoux it
-
Deleted User 89
Re: The Great Outdoors
don’t you mean, getting deer and elk populations back down to more natural (and healthy) numbers?
Re: The Great Outdoors
Images I will never forget for $2000, Alex.
Emaciated and dead moose covered in deer ticks because there weren’t enough wolves to control the over population. The fir trees would recover. Seeing starving moose was disturbing.
Emaciated and dead moose covered in deer ticks because there weren’t enough wolves to control the over population. The fir trees would recover. Seeing starving moose was disturbing.
Re: The Great Outdoors
Situations I'll never forget for 2000 alexis
Dead and wasted deer and elk carcasses, not to mention calves and cattle carcasses, laying to waste because the wolves are too plentiful and are deciding to kill for practice, for fun.
Cougars prowling neighborhoods and elementary school yards because the over population of wolves have pushed the cats down into lower ground and civilization.
Fresh wolf tracks in elk camp around the morning fire as they cruised through a very open human camp without fear.
Dead and wasted deer and elk carcasses, not to mention calves and cattle carcasses, laying to waste because the wolves are too plentiful and are deciding to kill for practice, for fun.
Cougars prowling neighborhoods and elementary school yards because the over population of wolves have pushed the cats down into lower ground and civilization.
Fresh wolf tracks in elk camp around the morning fire as they cruised through a very open human camp without fear.
Just Ledoux it
Re: The Great Outdoors
How DARE those animals encroach on human space! What, they think they were there first or something?
Re: The Great Outdoors
To each their own, but I prefer seeing slaughtered animals to starving animals.