The Kootenay R. drains into the Columbia R., the Priest R. drains into the
Pend Orielle R., which drains into the Columbia R., the Pend Orielle R.,
drains Pend Orielle L. Pend Orielle L. is fed primarily by the Clark Fork R.
and Pack R.
Dell
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kent Dowd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 9:28 AM
Subject: Re: Difference between Kamloops and Gerrard Rainbows?


> Im not sure but doesn't the kootenay river system flow into pend orielle
> river below pend orielle lake.  Ive always thought kootney lk flows into
> priest lake via upper priest river. not sure now. lol
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Tuesday, November 27, 2001 4:52 PM
> Subject: Difference between Kamloops and Gerrard Rainbows?
>
>
> > It sounds like we all are a bit confused about the difference between
the
> two strains.  Maybe we can pool our collective knowledge and figuire this
> out.  Scott, where are you?? LOL
> >
> > My minimal knowledge base tells me that Kamloops tend to have a small
head
> with the fat bodies, thus the nick name "Flying Footballs" or "Football
> Fish".  When hooked, they fight very aggressively and like to go air born
> quite a bit.  That is about all I know.
> >
> > Gerrard tend to have more symetrical bodies with the head being in
> proportion to the rest of the body size.  Gerrard's also like to go
airborn
> but not as much as a Kamloops.  The Gerrard home waters in B.C. is based
> around Jewel and Kootenay Lakes with obvious spill out into the Kootenay
> River system.
> >
> > Now the confusing part.  Both fish grow at rapid rates and have home
> waters in area's that are extremely close to each other.  The Kootenay
River
> system extends down into the West and it is my understanding that this is
> where the rainbows in Pend Orielle came from. However, the web site for
the
> Pend Orielle fishing derby lists the fish as Kamloops.
> >
> > Anybody have any more information to add?
> >
> > Mike
> >
>

Reply via email to