brookie streams that no one fishes

[FarmerDave]

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.

Geebee, you aren't doing the fish any favors by removing the deadfall. The fish are likely better off if you leave it alone. By removing it, you are only helping the predators. And definitely leave the rake at home. You aren't helping the fish, you are just helping the angler, and fishing these streams is not supposed to be like golf.

As far as the regs go, general regs apply, but the extended season creel limit does not. Once the regular season ends, no more harvest allowed. Extended season only applies to "approved" trout streams. On the flip side, if i is not an "approved" stream, then it is not closed to fishing from March 1 to opening day.

 

[troutbert]

I want to "pile on" here and agree with the others who have said: don't remove the deadfalls.

Deadfalls, downed trees, logjams, large woody debris (LWD) coarse woody debris (CWD). Whatever term you prefer, leave it alone.

As you walk along these backcountry streams, look at each pool, and notice what caused the formation of that pool. In a great many cases, the pool was caused by a downed tree, logjam, etc.

 

[JackM]

I, too, am a "lazy fair" angler. Clip a branch if you need a decent casting lane. Other than that, leave the stream alone. Nature will sort things out.

 

[troutbert]

More on deadfalls.

Earlier this spring I met with some people with a conservation group who are planning some projects to increase the amount of "large woody debris" (LWD) i.e. deadfalls, on small brookie streams.

One of the things I told them was to pick spots that are way back in there, far from the nearest road, to decrease the likelihood that someone will come along with a chainsaw and remove the LWD that you just put in. Because that happens a lot, unfortunately.

Imagine their dismay if they spent the time and effort required to place trees in a stream channel to create some better habitat, then have someone come along and take it out.

 

[geebee]

Chaz wrote:

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.

this was back in MA, on town forest land and i had permission.

the winter flow was very marginal and not enough to clear the leaves. in places the stream would stop flowing completely with clogs of deadfall and leaves.

some years the leaves could be 3-4" inches thick - i should say the stream was only about 5ft wide and was on a former Estate and in their wisdom they dyked both banks to a height of about 3ft above the natural bank, so there was no way for the stream to meander around deadfalls or wash away leave build up and silt.

the Estate had been derelict since the late 1880's but its records show that one brook had trout and the other alewives ( a small herring).

we felt at the time that if we could keep the headwaters clear that it would help the stream further down renew...

normally i would never touch a stream, but the only alternative would have been a very intensive digging out of both bank dykes, i appreciate and respect people's concerns though.

 

[Chaz]

Foxgap239 wrote:

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.

george, it's very important to make sure you approach a pool from below and fish the tail before moving up to far. this means you have to fish it from a distance of maybe the middle of the run below or the pool below. Brookies and browns love the tails of pools, this is especially true during the spawn.

 

[Foxgap239]

Chaz wrote:
george, it's very important to make sure you approach a pool from below and fish the tail before moving up to far. this means you have to fish it from a distance of maybe the middle of the run below or the pool below. Brookies and browns love the tails of pools, this is especially true during the spawn.

Chaz, my brain knows this very well, but sometimes getting my brain to have a conversation with my casting arm, seems like a lost cause!

 

[henrydavid]

Or you can just allow the state to dump rocks and create a riparian bank, no brush, wheres all the insects?