Posts: 1,734
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2007
Reputation:
0
I'm not a real lake trout fan, but I was just at the grocery store and picked up the latest issue of Salmon, Trout, Steelheader magazine. There's an article about Lake Tahoe. Looks like the Gorge and Blue Mesa are on the backburner for a while. Some guy caught a bunch of big macks at Tahoe and one was an 87 pounder! He rigged a big ocean reel with 700 yards and was fishing an underwater hump at 900 feet deep! His bait was 10-12 pound dead mackeral rigged on a 20/0 hook. Bet there aren't many that big in there and you mack lovers ought to get 'em while you can.
[signature]
Posts: 895
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation:
0
Sweet blue water! Is that 87 pounder an official weight or some claim by fisherman? There have been 2 reports from the Gorge that I know of, that reported fish of over 82 pounds, not official though. A guy from Ogden said he caught a 52 pound Lake Trout in Horshoe Canyon last summer, July or August. I could easily imaganine there being laker of about 80 or 90 pounds at Lake Tahoe and the Gorge. Did the article say whether the laker was a Siscowet? The Siscowets at the Great Lakes grow to huge weights. They are mostly over 500 feet deep though. Are there any deeper spots than 436 feet at Flaming Gorge? My fishfinder once showed a depth of 525 feet around the dam area, with a fish at around 500 feet, but maybe is is just electronics. I wonder if that was a Siscowet, if there are any?
[signature]
Posts: 1,734
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2007
Reputation:
0
They said as soon as the paperwork goes through it is an official IGFA world record. I didn't read the whole article so I"m not sure if it was a Siscowet, but it was a Bigowet! Do you really believe there are lakers in the Gorge much over 50 pounds? Could be. They can live over 100 years from what I hear. I think I would make the trip to sunny California if I was heavily pursuing a huge Mack and bribing this guide! Personally, I would rather an 10-12lb. brook trout!
[signature]
Posts: 895
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation:
0
'll be darned. I must read this article. It will not be the largest lake trout known, but the largest caught. A gillnet in 1961 turned up a 102 pouner in lake Athabasca, Saskachewan. Them Canadian Lakes have some real monsters, I tell you what. I guess now Lake Tahoe does also.
[signature]
Posts: 484
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation:
0
Lets see today is April 1st hmmm[  ] Do you have a link you could put out with this article? Thanks
Bodine
[signature]
Posts: 36,033
Threads: 297
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
57
[cool][#0000ff]And didja read also, in the same magazine [url "http://www.salmontroutandsteelhead.com/"]LINK TO PUB[/url] about the 6 year old kid who caught a 40 pound brookie out of Salt Lake, using a "Buzzard Puke" fly pattern, in size 10/0?[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 3,614
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2003
Reputation:
0
wow a 40 lbs brookie in the salt lake! realy dude? or are you just funning us?
lmao!!
[signature]
Posts: 36,033
Threads: 297
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
57
[cool][#0000ff]Hey, I'm a fisherman (sometimes). Would I stretch the truth? No more than the story about the mack.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Anyway, the fish is no longer there. They ate it for dinner and did not take any pics. But, you can trust me. Sound familiar? [/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 2,933
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
Reputation:
0
well the page opens but where did ya find the story? thanx
[signature]
Posts: 36,033
Threads: 297
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
57
[#0000ff]THERE IS NO STORY. That's the point. He is pulling our chain.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]April Fools.[/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 1,734
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2007
Reputation:
0
Guys I know yesterday was April Fools day and this would have been a good prank, but unless the magazine was pulling a joke, it's bonified. The guy also says he truly believes there are over 100 lb. lake trout in Tahoe. The article is in this months edition of Salmon, Trout, Steelheader. TubeDude go get one and at least tell the guys I'm not dreaming!
[signature]
Posts: 468
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2007
Reputation:
0
I still think this could be some kind of April Fool's joke, but here's some little bits of information....
The previous Lake Tahoe record for a lake trout is a 37 pounder caught in 1974 (this would be an insane record breaker for Lake Tahoe, not to mention a world record for a rod and reel). On the other hand, Tahoe has a maximum depth of 1,645 feet.... so of course there could be some record lake trout down deep that have managed to elude trollers and jiggers, but pushing 80 lbs? I don't know about that one.
Siscowet lake trout are lakers that haved developed an extreme deep water lifestyle. They will spawn at 300 feet down, and are found as deep as 1,309 feet in lake Superior, which is the only Lake Siscowets have been reported.
[url "http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/230495_191888_7.pdf"]http://www.michigan.gov/.../230495_191888_7.pdf[/url]
[signature]
Posts: 36,033
Threads: 297
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
57
[cool][#0000ff]If it is not a prank, my apologies. I used to subscribe to Amato's publication but it has been awhile. I could not find anything on a current edition, so I blew it off.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]What makes me skeptical is that I lived in Sacramento and fished Tahoe for years...and knew many of the guides. A 30 pound mack from Tahoe was huge...State record was about 37 pounds...and was and OLD fish that would have been much heavier from most other mack lakes. [/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]The "accepted" theory is that the lake is "dead" below about 400 feet deep, with not enough oxygen to sustain life. It is rare for macks to be caught anywhere near that deep. Most are taken at around 200 feet. And, that is a high altitude lake with not as much forage as other mack holes. Lots of kokanee and rainbow but they usually hang out much shallower than the macks. The tui chubs that sustain the macks are not very big and not very thick.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]Another "red flag" is that a trout that size would make headlines all over the fishing world and would result in MANY new website links. There is NOTHING anywhere that makes any mention of such a fish. I know that the Sacramento and Reno papers would have been all over it. NADA...ZIP...ZILCH.[/#0000ff]
[#0000ff][/#0000ff]
[#0000ff]I would have to see a certified report and credible photos before I would give that story ANY merit at all. [/#0000ff]
[signature]
Posts: 45
Threads: 0
Joined: Sep 2006
Reputation:
0
"[size 1]Guys I know yesterday was April Fools day and this would have been a good prank, but unless the magazine was pulling a joke, it's bonified. "[/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1]HELLO !!![/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1][/size]
[size 1][/size]
[signature]
|
