brookie streams that no one fishes

[k-bob]

No trail along white house run, I know because I walked up the stream.

Several streams like this have no trail.

 

[StarvinMarvin]

I have many secret gems, and a few prototype streams I plan on fishing. I do my research and study maps in my area but its the planning and adventure that makes it wicked fun.

 

[FarmerDave]

pcray1231 wrote:
Nobody wants to fish stream "so-so" when they could be fishing a now super famous stream.

Speak for yourself. In fact, I'd rather fish a small "so-so" stream than one of those "special" places. Super famous, whatever.

K-bob. It is true that you (or I) rarely see another angler on them, but isn't that a good thing?

People suck. Crowds of people suck even more. If I want to bet back to nature, I don't want to see other people, and I try not to leave any sign that I was there and will even try to remove sign (litter) that others were.

Don't assume anything.

 

[k-bob]

Dave yes I appreciate areas with no trash on stream, where I would be truly surprised to encounter another fisherman. Good thing, and there are so many streams like white house run within a doable drive of me that I dont think it will change.

Key factor in this is that the brook trout, sometimes viewed as a fragile species, is actually a tough little devil that will live with there are no other fish and there's not not too much for them to eat. Too acidic for brown trout, and not many aquatic insects? Still can be brookies. Few or no bait fish because there are so few aquatic insects? Still can be brookies -- and they are adapted to surviving on terrestrials and will chase a dry fly.... Many of these little streams in NE PA stay cold enough all summer for brookies.

on streams like these, it never even occurs to me that I might be fishing behind someone: never happened.... I heard clear sound last time I fished one of the streams, and my only thought was is that a deer or is that a bear? never even occurred to me that would be a person.

on some of the better known, easier access, more spectacular brookie streams, I only go there with thought of trying to reduce the chances of fishing behind someone.... and after I have fished a well known or more spectacular stream a certain number of times, I'd rather catch fewer fish on a new one....

Mike k if you are out there, could you guess at the total number of streams in Pennsylvania that have wild brook trout?

 

[henrydavid]

It seems to follow that if you have a healthy watershed and main stream that you will find numerous tribs that hold native brookies and wild trout.

The Lehigh and the Loyalsock are my favorites, the Nescopeck above I-80 has many tribs with wild trout. My most favorite outing from all of last year was bushwacking 3 miles down into a gorge and fishing a Loyalsock trib. Caught brookie after brookie and finally a beautiful 12-inch wild brown far down into the gorge.

When you combine hiking with wild trout fishing you get the best of both worlds. I too get a kick out of mapping and planning, I have a quite few folders saved with secret destinations.

 

[FarmerDave]

k-Bob, I'm glad Whitehouse is not a stream that i am familiar with or I'd probably be annoyed by now.

My stomping grounds were NWPA, and most of the streams I fish(ed) are on the natural reproduction list. I was a little bit disappointed to see that, but in a couple of ways, it is better if all of them are on there instead of just a few. Better for those few at least.

When I was a kid, my way of finding a new stream was get out the USGS topo maps. It definitely was more work then.

 

[geebee]

lf these streams are not 'listed' what are the regs for taking brookies ?

I ask, cos it has occurred to me more than once that i find a thin blue line with lots of small brookies i wonder that if i thinned them a little whether that would 'grow' a bigger fish or two ?

the couple of streams i used to fish i used to go late fall with a rake and clear dead leaves from the gravel, remove deadfall, prop up a bank or two - even got Mrs GB out there too, to help the streams as much as we could.

 

[troutbert]

geebee wrote:
lf these streams are not 'listed' what are the regs for taking brookies ?

I ask, cos it has occurred to me more than once that i find a thin blue line with lots of small brookies i wonder that if i thinned them a little whether that would 'grow' a bigger fish or two ?

the couple of streams i used to fish i used to go late fall with a rake and clear dead leaves from the gravel, remove deadfall, prop up a bank or two - even got Mrs GB out there too, to help the streams as much as we could.

The regs are the state-wide regs.

What does "prop up a bank or two" mean?

 

[k-bob]

"k-Bob, I'm glad Whitehouse is not a stream that i am familiar with or I'd probably be annoyed by now."

I mentioned white house run because I fished it recently and it's small, unlisted, brushy, public, and has some fish, but is no way a great or even a really good brookie stream.

Eight foot wide brookie streams aren't rare in NE PA... There are a heck of a lot of steams like the one shown in my post #8 this thread. My guess is that many of them are better than WHR. (Most of the unlisted streams I fished in the last year had at least some wild trout.)

I wanted to see if anyone else here had fished white house ... so far no one says they have, and I cant really recommend it.

Anyone who has bothered to fish white house run probably knows much better ones than WHR -- and they probably know better ones than I do...

 

[Foxgap239]

k-bob wrote:
"Anyone who has bothered to fish white house run probably knows much better ones than WHR -- and they probably know better ones than I do...

I find this so funny. Only because when I started fishing with k-bob we would talk about where to go and such, and I would always ask about the the fishing and he would say, you are about the catching. He was right but after maybe 6 months of fishing with him my definition of "better" ones would involve more than the fishing. Thanks Bob, you've screwed me up now! :-D

 

[geebee]

troutbert wrote:


What does "prop up a bank or two" mean?

where the bank was crumbling into the stream and in danger of smothering it, i'd find a couple of stones or an old log and put it in tight to protect it a bit.

not undercut banks with a hole obviously cos thats prime brookie refuge.

 

[k-bob]

"Thanks Bob, you've screwed me up now!"

oh sure, blame me! But on your substantive point, there used to be carpet commercials in Cincinnati: "I don't care about making money, I just luuuuv to sell carpet."

Me:? "I don't care about catching a lot of fish, I just luuuuv to see remote wilderness ares of Pennsylvania." not quite as catchy, I admit

 

[sandfly]

quite a few streams up this way no one fishes...some are partly private that fish well..was just in Bradford co. on some brookie streams that people think don't have fish..

 

[Chaz]

geebee wrote:
lf these streams are not 'listed' what are the regs for taking brookies ?

I ask, cos it has occurred to me more than once that i find a thin blue line with lots of small brookies i wonder that if i thinned them a little whether that would 'grow' a bigger fish or two ?

the couple of streams i used to fish i used to go late fall with a rake and clear dead leaves from the gravel, remove deadfall, prop up a bank or two - even got Mrs GB out there too, to help the streams as much as we could.

Don't get caught during the fall doing 'stream improvements,' none can be done without a permit and cannot be done after October 1. What makes you think that raking gravel is a good thing anyway? You may be raking a redd. Generally trout don't spawn before rains wash away the leaves where trout might spawn, I think you're wasting time and effort.
Removing woody debris is also a bad thing. propping up banks is also questionable, I'd leave the stream imporving to experts.

 

[JackM]

I have never fished a stream that had not been fished before. I think people underestimate the extent of pressure and/or harvest that would actually make an appreciable difference in the fishing.

Usually, on any given "brookie" water, the pressure is concentrated in certain stretches and less in other stretches. Though walking a good distance will reveal these areas, sometimes just walking a few hundred yards over rough terrain will reveal them as well.

 

[k-bob]

"I think people underestimate the extent of pressure and/or harvest that would actually make an appreciable difference in the fishing."

I agree completely, but I'd still rather not fish right behind someone if I can avoid it.

I just get bored if I fish the same stream too many times, no matter how good it is. Plus, I grew up in a place without wild trout and I think all these little streams that have some wild trout are cool.

 

[JackM]

Fishing "behind someone" can be detrimental if they are sloppy with wading and casting and less than an hour has passed. I have never been convinced that any harm lasts much longer. I know a lot of people with more experience have anecdotal proof to the contrary, but I remain skeptical based upon my own paltry experience.

 

[Foxgap239]

JackM wrote:
Fishing "behind someone" can be detrimental if they are sloppy with wading and casting and less than an hour has passed. I have never been convinced that any harm lasts much longer. I know a lot of people with more experience have anecdotal proof to the contrary, but I remain skeptical based upon my own paltry experience.

Jack, a month ago I would have disagreed with you but not anymore. k-bob and I fished a little brookie stream and actually came upon a pool of freely rising fish to something we couldn't see. We cast into the pool and both caught fish but in the process spooked fish in the tail of the pool to the head and the fish turned off. We both walked through the pool to get to the next spot and then fished upstream. About an hour later, we hiked back a path instead of close to the stream but the path crossed at the tail of the pool I mentioned above. Not only were the fish back in the tail but I was able to get a nicer sized brookie up at the head of the pool on the first cast. Now if it were wild browns, I'm not sure we would have seen fish let alone caught them in that pool.

 

[k-bob]

I know foxgap and jackm are right, that brookie fishing one or more hours behind someone may not be as bad as it seems, but I still would rather not do it. And I dont count fish, I count streams, rather be on a new place with less fish than a busy one with more fish.

 

[Foxgap239]

k-bob wrote:
I know foxgap and jackm are right, that brookie fishing one or more hours behind someone may not be as bad as it seems, but I still would rather not do it.

Never said I "wanted" to fish behind someone, unless, of course, it's you Bob because I can always then repopulate my fly box with brightly colored flies that way.