Colorado Fisherman Forum banner
1 - 2 of 2 Posts

2,678 Posts
bitafurnfeather said:

Thanks for all that, and especially the reminder to look at Behnke's work some time.

I've seen generalizations along the lines that 2/3 of front range lakes near or above timberline were barren of trout before the local gold rush. Would you say that figure is about right?
The 2/3 ratio might be correct, if not even higher i think.  a lot of the lakes that high were planted by air or had fingerlings packed in back by horseback in the 30s and 40s i believe--they just were never in an area where fish were introduced by natural means (feeder creeks, overflow, or what not) so they never held fish.  This is just what i have read of course, i am no expert on the subject.

Just yesterday i hiked up to a few high elevations lakes and wondered if they could sustain fish life as they were so high up they remain frozen most of the year and didnt seem to have any visible bio mass to support any fish population. Some of them seemed so isolated that i wondered if they held any fish at all. if they did i would think they were most likely planted there by man, not introduced by natural means...
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.