|
|
Post by fishchaser on Jun 6, 2011 15:55:44 GMT -5
Anyone know PH level of Harriman Reservoir? Keep seeing info that it's very low. That strikes me as odd because last year we caught a bunch of huge smallmouths there. They were all between 16 and 20 inches- and FAT. Thought they were extremely sensitive to poor PH. These fish were as healthy as any bass I have ever seen. Was early July. Anecdotal evidence would point to a low PH- but how low?
Granite based streams feed reservoir, acid rain, etc. Water sits over acidic soils. Must be those smallmouths didn't read the reports. Has to be some big fish in there. Saw scads of baitfish in there this weekend.
|
|
|
|
Post by buckshot (Ben) on Jun 6, 2011 16:35:42 GMT -5
I have been talking to the VT biologists for ages trying to get them to introduce walleye because its just what they like. Don't think they give a dam about this end of the state? Vtfishbio maybe could shed some light on this subject?
Lots of smelt and some lake trout just with the low stocking levels the fish never amount to much.
Bass definitely the best fish in the lake. Great perch fishing and smelt also. Huge perch big bass and lots of smelt and rock bass but a walleye won't survive ? ya right. just try it! and maybe we will have the best walleye lake in VT right here in southern Vermont.
|
|
|
|
Post by fishchaser on Jun 6, 2011 16:52:14 GMT -5
Buckshot,
I agree with you completely. This lake is understocked. Throw everything in there and see what takes hold. Smallmouths ARE PH sensitive and we could not believe the size and girth of these fish. My uncle, who is almost 80, said he never caught bass that big and he has fished like a fanatic all his life. Biggest bass I've seen and I'm no spring chicken. Plus, we were only able to fish a very small area- perhaps 300 square feet. Caught 7 bass all between 16 and 20 inches- full of nymphs. We threw all the fish back; the nymphs were still in their throats. I feel this lake is going to waste. I am a firm believer in science but at times I think Vt F and W is running a lab and not experiencing the real world. Fish do not read charts and graphs. Plus, science sometimes misses important factors which net unexpected results.
|
|
|
|
Post by buckshot (Ben) on Jun 6, 2011 20:23:54 GMT -5
My son and I have been catching those hogs for ages and man do they put up a fight. I am addicted to trolling so bass can only keep me entertained for so long. I sure wish the state would remember that there are other lakes in the state besides Champlain and all the north east kingdom lakes. They used to put some breeder fish in there but now they just throw a few two year old brook trout in there every year that don't amount to crap!
The same old song and dance!
|
|
|
|
Post by david on Jun 7, 2011 22:32:32 GMT -5
PH is pretty complicated. If it's human caused it can be more lethal than a naturally occuring low PH. Water stained by dying plants with a low PH tends to be more capable of supporting fish life that clear water. Metal contents in low PH waters are another factor.
So Harriman is in the Deerfield basin and usually the higher you go in elevation the lower the ph. We know that Somerset Reservoir is over 2000 feet in elevation and more acidic than Harriman, but smallmouth do okay up there and then above somerset you have Grout Pond which has smallmouths as well. So I'm feeling pretty secure about the smallmouth population in Harriman. It's not a species like walleye, atlantic salmon, wild rainbow or wild brown trout that goes into a precipitous decline in as soon as you mention it - at least in Vermont.
The PH of Harriman will vary by depth and by season and species like rainbow trout won't reproduce at low PH levels. They tried steelhead in the 1950's with no luck. I would assume the PH of Harriman would drop to aound 5.5 lower down and maybe get to around 6.5 near the surface.
I personally don't think Harriman has a particularly productive shoreline. Yes there are some bugs and crusteacans along the shoreline, but it's nothing like what you get in some other water bodies loaded with bugs crayfish, snails.... That's not just because of acidity, it's because the reservoir gets drained. Harriman has an average depth of 35 feet deep and the average annual drawdown is 40 feet. That's tough. Do the math. I think a bunch of years ago someone in the state suggested the chain pikerel as an indicator species of a healthy near shore community. Go try pikerel fishing on Harriman. There is a lot of shallow rocky shoreline for smallies, but I feel that the bigger fish often drop deep to feed after spawning and the small ones remain along the shore rising for gnats, eating small bass, rock bass and perch. Harriman doesn't have the massive number of bluegills, pumpkinseeds, pikerel and shiners you find in many lakes with lots of plant life. It does have a lot of rock bass. I used to throw crayfish traps in Harriman and it was not very good. The north branch had some big ones. It's nothing like some ponds that are loaded with crayfish. The currently drained "Sweet Pond" which has an "infinite amount of acid buffering" in Guilford comes to mind. Harriman does have some nice bullhead as well.
Acidity is a major problem in Southern Vermont and there are some attractive, but dead ponds due to acidity. Hope this helps.
|
|
|
|
Post by brian on Jun 8, 2011 8:34:20 GMT -5
I personally don't think Harriman has a particularly productive shoreline. Yes there are some bugs and crusteacans along the shoreline, but it's nothing like what you get in some other water bodies loaded with bugs crayfish, snails.... That's not just because of acidity, it's because the reservoir gets drained. Harriman has an average depth of 35 feet deep and the average annual drawdown is 40 feet. That's tough. Do the math. I think a bunch of years ago someone in the state suggested the chain pikerel as an indicator species of a healthy near shore community. Go try pikerel fishing on Harriman. There is a lot of shallow rocky shoreline for smallies, but I feel that the bigger fish often drop deep to feed after spawning and the small ones remain along the shore rising for gnats, eating small bass, rock bass and perch. Harriman doesn't have the massive number of bluegills, pumpkinseeds, pikerel and shiners you find in many lakes with lots of plant life. It does have a lot of rock bass. I used to throw crayfish traps in Harriman and it was not very good. The north branch had some big ones. It's nothing like some ponds that are loaded with crayfish. The currently drained "Sweet Pond" which has an "infinite amount of acid buffering" in Guilford comes to mind. Harriman does have some nice bullhead as well. Acidity is a major problem in Southern Vermont and there are some attractive, but dead ponds due to acidity. Hope this helps. I've been fishing Harriman since 1988 and certainly will agree with David's observations. The bass grow slowly there. Check out the size of their mouths in relation to their overall length. Often times they look like a largemouth basses mouth. We caught a smallmouth about 2.5" long on a Mepps last week. Clearly it was spawned last year, yet only attained that puny size. Lack of aquatic weed growth (due to seasonal water draw downs) in Harriman insures that it will never reach it's potential as a top fishery. However, it is a decent warm water fishery all things considered, that appears to have gotten better since the latest licensing agreement prevents water drawn downs spring spawning season. |
|
|
|
Post by fishchaser on Jun 8, 2011 8:55:39 GMT -5
David,
Agree with your observations. We have called Harriman water flowing over a big rockpile.
Buffering capacity is probably very low. F and W is stocking brookies in there now. Also, seem to be stocking Great Averill lake in NEK with brookies. Used to stock it with lakers and salmon. Also, notice they stock Somerset heavily with brookies. All these lakes have a lower ph. Is there a scientific rationale for this? Can brookies thrive in a lower ph environment? Just curious.
Too bad about Harriman but it would not exist at all without the dam. Fish and Wildlife has a lot to contend with- science and politics. Looks like we'll spend our time further north, especially since we prefer salmonids. Thanks for info.
|
|
|
|
Post by dylansdad on Jun 8, 2011 9:04:04 GMT -5
I fished harriman 2 weekends ago with my 3 year old son and my wife. More like a family outing as I got to fish for a total of about 5 minutes, but anyways, my boy caught a lot of rock bass as you said. The thing i found interesting was that my wife was throwing a senko and the salamanders were latching on to that like crazy. must be loaded with them too, because I think she hauled in 5 or 6 of them in just a short amount of time. Jeremy.
|
|
|
|
Post by david on Jun 8, 2011 20:52:47 GMT -5
I guess this is a better question for Fish Farmer to answer. But I think brookies are a good put and take fish. That would explain the stocking of large brookies in Harriman. They are usually pretty catchable so they return well to anglers. I'm not sure of the strategy for Great Averill, but I strongly suspect they are shooting for easy in shore fishing for brookies. I know it's managed for lake trout without stocking and maybe they want to keep the competition down. Brookies can withstand and reproduce in a low ph environment as can brown trout and landlocked salmon. David, Agree with your observations. We have called Harriman water flowing over a big rockpile. Buffering capacity is probably very low. F and W is stocking brookies in there now. Also, seem to be stocking Great Averill lake in NEK with brookies. Used to stock it with lakers and salmon. Also, notice they stock Somerset heavily with brookies. All these lakes have a lower ph. Is there a scientific rationale for this? Can brookies thrive in a lower ph environment? Just curious. Too bad about Harriman but it would not exist at all without the dam. Fish and Wildlife has a lot to contend with- science and politics. Looks like we'll spend our time further north, especially since we prefer salmonids. Thanks for info. |
|
|
|
Post by fishchaser on Jun 8, 2011 21:26:58 GMT -5
David,
Thanks for your insights. We saw good numbers of fish in 50 ft of water suspended about 5 ft above bottom. They were not in the deep part of lake but adjacent to it some distance. We thought they may be bows or brookies hovering over some sort of spring but obviously we could not be sure. We did not fish for them as we were after salmon and browns. Good to know that these fish can survive for at least a limited time in this waterbody. We like a challenge and this lake certainly presents one. It is, however, more satisfying than catching recently stocked bows from some of the ponds here in southern Vermont.
|
|
