Fly Guy Dave wrote:When aquatic insects hatch from the water, they have to rise to the surface before they can break the surface tension and fly, so the have to run the gauntlet of the fish on their journey up to the top. If there is enough food below the surface, there's no need for the fish to use the extra energy to get the bugs on the surface. The trout might have been feasting a few feet below the surface, thereby making it look like there were no fish in the lake, even though there was an epic hatch.
Yes, I've been to lakes where there has been abundant surface insect activity and little or no dimpling of the surface of a lake from trout, but...sometimes trout simply feed on other sources. In High Sierra lakes, a very common food source for trout are those fresh water shrimp (scuds) whose consumption leads to that wonderfully flavorful orange-red flesh so many of savor. This is not by any means the only subsurface food source for trout, but it is a common thread in so many of those High Sierra lakes that otherwise look amazingly sterile and lifeless yet have big fish. I ate a fish out of the lake in question about 7.5 years ago and it did indeed have very orange flesh (I did not see a rise in 3 hours when at this lake and sighted only two fish: both of which were on the end of my line).
Returning to the remote destination subject, I think the WD brings up a good point in terms of time-of-year, too. Another factor that contributes to the feeling of remoteness or lack thereof is presence or absence of evidence of human visitation, be it use trails, fire rings, litter, etc. The north side of Kendrick Creek had the least evidence of human visitation of any spot I've ever been in the Sierra except one (see below): no use trails at all (bear trails yes, but no human use trails) and only one fire ring: and this one had bushes growing out of it I estimated to be at least 5 years old. That was also the most physically miserable hiking I've done in my 50 years of hiking in the mountains. In contrast the south side of Kendrick Creek had a bit more evidence of human visitation: still no use trails, but a few more fire rings (I recall one or two at Edyth and at least one at lake downstream of Edyth). Overall, however, I'd say even the S side of Kendrick had less evidence of human passage than I've seen in the trailless expanses of Kaweah Basin-Red Spur, Glacier Divide, Ionian Basin, Goddard Creek, Tunemah vicinity (including the enchanting basin below the main lake), Dumbbell Lakes, etc. Perhaps use trails or footprints last longer in areas where vegetation doesn't grow (in contrast to Kendrick Creek), but I suspect that Kendrick Creek does in fact get less use than those areas. I saw even less evidence of visitation along the Emerald Staircase upstream of Flora (compared to S side Kendrick Creek and possibly the N side too), even though it is physically much easier to reach than Edyth. I suspect this is (partly) because it was thought to have gone fishless after Flora and the lakes upstream did after air dropping ceased decades ago. Of course I wasn't there for a fishless experience in 1995 because I had guessed that fish made it downstream into that section during the air drop era and unlike Flora and the other lakes were able to spawn. The guess was correct (very nice fish), but like many aspects of the High Sierra fisheries, this was a temporary situation. Those lakes and connecting streams have had their trout populations eradicated (or soon will be, forget which). Based on that, I guess the Emerald Staircase will see even fewer humans than it did back in the mid 90's when I was there and I did not see a single fire ring or footprint, let alone a use trail, then.
This is indeed a good thread for daydreaming and reminiscing.
