My first toad

That's an interesting report and goes against conventional wisdom that the Susquehanna doesn't have those type of depths. While they are limited, the "deeps" certainly could trap cold water and provide refuge for big fish to "summer over" in. No doubt the forage base is there to support their metabolic needs with an abundance of crayfish and baitfish.

That's a report worth printing out and tucking away in the binder!

 
Yep, interesting graphic - depths are deeper than I thought.

I would emphasize, however, that the deep trough on the east side of the river is not comparable to what one would expect with a cold water release dam. Holtwood dam is only, I think, about 50' high and the water depths in front of it are consistent with this. This is not a deep water reservoir and, if anything, I would think that this situation would be more conducive to warming of the river rather than cooling. It's a big, impounded river pool.

Nevertheless, as others have pointed out, there may be cold water refugia and spring seeps in some of the deeper spots that could hold over trout. These would be worth understanding and studying.
 
The speculation on how the deep channels formed was interesting as well. For a river that is relatively shallow along its length, they certainly are some deep "pockets".
 
Great stories and fish!

- - - -

I'm ordering a grizzly w/ a jet prop.

Full sink "Loch Style" is gunna happen
 
Alintak caught a magic Hocus Pocus migration voodoo trout.
 
Sorry. Great fish and all but why does it need to be called a "toad?"
 
Holy Moly Jeff 180 ft deep? Have you guaged the depths with a depth finder to report these depths? If so I'd get it calibrated...the dams are not even that tall. And if so I would recommend that the PF&BC contact the power companies operating them and create tailwater fisheries with bottom releases. I mean that would solve the warm water part of the Smallmouth decline puzzle.

Sounds far fetched...I can't believe this is the first I've ever heard of it.

Having grown up in the area and spending some summer afternoons back in the 80's waterskiing and boating that water with the family, I remember we found some of those deeper spots and I vividly recall our depth finder indicating 130+ feet along the Lancaster side where shown on the maps that have been posted. If you look at the topography of the area, that 'bank' of the river is basically a steep cliff that plunges right down into the water.
 
LAKE CLARKE
Current Elevations - Lake depths, collected from 26 cross sections in Lake Clarke
(fig. 3), were adjusted to the normal pool elevation of 227.2 ft above sea level and are
shown on plate 1. The deepest areas of the lake are closest to the dam and range from 30 to
50 ft. The deeper channel close to the left bank, running from just upstream of the dam to
Fishing Creek, is the remnant of the old Susquehanna and Tidewater Canal. The upper
half of the lake is generally shallow; the average lake depth is about 15 ft, with many
islands and sand and coal bars nearWashington Boro. When the lake level is low, much of
the area around Washington Boro is too shallow for boating.

LAKE ALDRED
Current Elevations - Depth-to-bottom data, collected in 1996 from 16 cross sections
in Lake Aldred (fig. 4) and adjusted to the normal pool elevation of 169.75 ft above sea
level, are shown on plate 2. The deepest areas of the lake are not located near the dam but
in spoon-shaped depressions called “deeps” located in the middle and lower parts of the
lake. When Holtwood Dam was built in 1910, a coffer dam, built to divert water away
from construction, exposed six “deeps” along the west bank. Three deeps are shown on
the lake-elevation map and have depths greater than 80 ft; one deep reaches a depth of
about 120 ft, which extends below sea level. How these deeps formed is uncertain but is a
common subject for geology classes and local geological groups. The shallowest area in the lake is the upper part near Weise Island. Unlike Lake Clarke, lake depths decrease
near the dam. Because Holtwood Dam contains no flood gates, sediment is able to
accumulate near the dam rather than exit from the bottom near the flood gates.


CONOWINGO RESERVOIR
Current Elevations - Depth-to-bottom data, collected in 1996 from 23 cross sections
in the Conowingo Reservoir (fig. 5) and adjusted to the normal pool elevation of 108.5 ft
above sea level, are shown on plate 3. The deepest areas of the lake are located near the
dam. Lake depths average about 55 ft along the spillway gates, which are located along
the dam from the east bank to about two-thirds of the way across the river. Lake depths
average about 70 ft near the turbine gates, which are located along the remaining third of
the dam. The spillway and turbine gates are located well below the normal water surface.
Two other deep areas, one across from the Peach Bottom Power Plant and the other below
the confluence with Broad Creek, probably resulted from natural hydraulic scouring
caused by the stream channel shape. The shallowest areas are located in the upper onethird
of the reservoir; lake depths in this area average about 15 ft.
 
Thats truly an awesome fish Jeff! No idea on the stream but it does not surprise me that the lower susky would hide fish like that. Not entirely sure I understand why they would over winter in small tributaries though. Warmer water? I'm used to thinking of rivers as being the warm spots. Maybe it's reversed in winter. Something to keep an eye on in those streams in the future...why are those big fish going to the tribs and staying after spawning, and how many of them are really there?
 
Beautiful fish, and really great detail about the whole experience!
 
First off, Alnitak, nice fish. Congrats!

Secondly, why is everyone so obsessed with what fly he caught the fish on?
 
BrookieChaser wrote:
Secondly, why is everyone so obsessed with what fly he caught the fish on?

Natural question when someone tells you they "got a nice one" is "What did you get him on?"

I'm still hoping someone asks him WHERE he caught it so the spot burning debate can get going again.
 
McSneek wrote:

Natural question when someone tells you they "got a nice one" is "What did you get him on?"

Interesting. I guess either my mind doesn't work, or I don't fish, in the "natural" way.
 
While there may be cold water in the river's impoundment that could theoretically support trout in the summer, support of trout in summer is unlikely because the impoundment has been shown in the past not have sufficient oxygen within its normal depths (ignoring the extra deep locations discussed here). I don't recall that the water was particularly cold either, but on that point I could be mistaken.

There are no forage limitations in a number of the lower Susquehanna streams, and that is especially true in the winter. There are fish behavorial characteristics in the lower Susquehanna and Schuylkill River fish communities that greatly enhance stream forage fish populations in fall through spring.

 
are there fish ladders on those dams ?
 
I'm still hoping someone asks him WHERE he caught it so the spot burning debate can get going again.

Well, considering his extensive description of the day he caught it, and if you're on this site then Google Maps is just a click away....shouldn't be too hard to narrow it down.
 
This fish made me start thinking back about the other large brown trout I've seen in the past year--I moved back to PA in late 2013 and started fly fishing in December 2013 (I used to fish for trout here when I grew up in PA, but fly fishing is new to me). I have seen a lot more large trout like this in small streams than you might imagine.

Three times this summer I saw trout that easily matched this one in size chase after smaller trout I had hooked in a deep hole. I don't know if it was curiosity or an attempt to eat the smaller fish. In all three cases it was in small streams--all of them even smaller than this one--but in large deep pools with great hiding structures. These streams were all many miles away from any larger bodies of water.

I know of several other small streams were I have seen very large trout but been unable to catch them. Then we had the thread someone shared here from another forum of a similar large trout in a small stream. All of this indicates that this is not an entirely uncommon occurrence.

I suspect that there are more large trout out there than any of realize, but they don't get to that size by being easily seen or caught. The limits to their growth are going to be more based on the forage availability in the stream and the availability of suitable habitat--i.e., large pools.

Interestingly enough, all of these streams are not stocked. I don't think that's a coincidence. I suspect that stocking plays a dual role in limiting the presence/number of large wild trout in small streams. The one role we naturally think of is the fishing and harvest pressure created by the hordes of folks that fish stocked streams here in PA. That no doubt plays a role as those folks are typically going to harvest large fish. However, I also think the competition plays a key role. In a stream with limited good holding habitat and a fixed forage base, the dump of a large number of trout--many of them fairly big when they are released--creates competition for the wild population. Studies have shown that removing stocking does allow populations of wild trout to flourish.

As for the fly conversation, while I understand the interest, I firmly believe in the old adage "Fortune favors the well-prepared." That is to say, luck plays a far greater role in what happens than most of us would like to admit, but we can increase our odds of capitalizing on it. In all of the times I've seen large trout this summer you can bet I TRIED to catch one and failed. I have no doubt that my skills and efforts can and will improve such that I will catch more in the future--but luck also plays a role in determining whether the fish will strike and whether my line will hold, etc. Finally, persistence plays a huge role in increasing your odds in this game of chance.

Anyway, thanks for the kind words guys and lets all hope for a great 2015 filled with trout. I love getting outside and being on a stream more than anything else, and catching any fish is great. Its a wonderfully therapeutic thing. If fortune favors me with a large one like this again, I will relish the moment.

Jeff
 
As one of the people who asked what fly he was using, maybe the first one, I don't think I am obsessed with the details. I simply asked if OP would share if he didn't mind. If he did mind that is his choice.

It seems like a reasonable question to me. Hopefully I wasn't out of line.
 
phiendWMD wrote:
As one of the people who asked what fly he was using, maybe the first one, I don't think I am obsessed with the details. I simply asked if OP would share if he didn't mind. If he did mind that is his choice.

It seems like a reasonable question to me. Hopefully I wasn't out of line.
No worries, that was a perfectly reasonable question to ask. I hear it asked often.
 
phiendWMD wrote:
As one of the people who asked what fly he was using, maybe the first one, I don't think I am obsessed with the details. I simply asked if OP would share if he didn't mind. If he did mind that is his choice.

It seems like a reasonable question to me. Hopefully I wasn't out of line.

Yeah, its a reasonable question, and I'm always glad to answer. I'm not ashamed to admit to using the pink San Juan extensively in the winter--its very effective when the fish might otherwise not be eating.

That said, the fly I often use in the winter with great success is a little size 18 midge emerger I tie myself. The browns seem to love it.

Jeff
 
Back
Top