Trout species and ease of capture

[Eccles]

I'm vaguely working on something that touches on one of those perennial fishing questions and as there are a lot of very experienced fishermen on this forum I wondered if I could get some opinions.

It is often said that there is a hierarchy among trout in how easy they are to catch (some angling sages refute this it should be said - Bob Wyatt for one and I think Paul Schullery has intimated the same). Essentially the saying goes that cutthroat trout are considered to be easier to catch than rainbows which, in turn, are easier to catch than the wise old brown trout. Brook trout fit in there somewhere but I'm not sure where - nearer the cutthroats I imagine.

So, first question is whether you guys consider that to be true - particularly, in this neck of the woods, the brook trout/brown trout comparison. And just to head off some objections I realise that brown trout can be ridiculously easy at times, when they are young, when they are in poor water and are hungry etc etc. I am more imagining everything else being equal, a brook trout and a brown (or cutthroat or rainbow - whatever comparison you prefer) side by side, same size etc etc - is one easier to catch than the other?

Secondly - what is the reason for your opinion? Obviously if your answer is no - it is just environment that dictates the vulnerability of the fish - then there isn't much to explain. But if you do think there is a difference why so?

Apologies if this has been debated to death before.

Eccles

 

[JackM]

Brook trout are perceived easier in PA than browns because of where they live. I doubt that "non-selectivity" is actual bred into the native stocks because of where they generally live, but rather, in the short-run, nature will promote those individuals that are eager to take whatever passes by.

 

[troutbert]

From easiest to most difficult:

Cuttroat, brookies, rainbows, browns.

Many freestone streams in PA have mixed populations of browns and brook trout. The brookies are much easier to catch than the browns in those streams.

 

[Fishidiot]

The study of cuts vs bows and browns - if I recollect correctly - was done at Yellowstone some years ago. This study produced a striking difference between cuts and browns in particular with the former getting caught many times more.

To the extent that is varies between species here in PA (when one controls for other variables)...I do think browns are still tougher. I base this purely on my own angling experience and from anecdotal conversation with other anglers.

There's a school of thought (I think serious scientists likely consider it bunk) that holds that browns are tougher to catch because they have evolved with pressure from fishermen in Europe for a longer period than the New World brooks, cutts, and bows. Nonsense? Perhaps.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

I never caught a cutthroat, so I don't know about that. I have caught a lot of the other ones. Most of the browns I catch are on freestoners w/ brookies too, so I never think about how difficult they are because I don't target one or the other. I will say this though. I'm sure this depends on where you're fishing. Freestone brookies, yeah they're easy. The challenging part for many of us is getting to them. But what about spring creek brookies? I find them to be more difficult than freestone browns. But then on spring creeks, I catch more browns than bows, but that may be due to the fact that there are more browns than bows in the stream. There's always exceptions to these types of things, I guess.

 

[shortrod2]

I see far more variance between pressured stream vs non-pressured stream and fertile stream vs non-fertile stream than I do between species all other things being equal.

 

[Mike]

Troutbert is correct. It has been scientifically documented (and published, if I recall correctly). It has been documented here in Pa with stocked trout fisheries as well through angler use and harvest studies.

 

[BrookieChaser]

I agree with Troutbert and Mike.

Cutthroat are 7x more likely to be fooled with a fly than a brookie. A brookie is 5x more likely to be fooled than a brown, and a rainbow 2x more likely than a brown. According to Robert Behnke.

 

[pcray1231]

Generally agree with all of the above. If I had to put them in order, from easiest to hardest, it'd be brookies-->rainbows-->browns.

There's 2 parts to it I think.

1. Selectiveness. This means that you have to get the fly and the presentation just so or they'll refuse it. I think this has more to do with where they live, than what species they are. i.e. browns in an infertile little freestoner act more like brookies, in that they're less selective. Brookies in a larger limestoner act more like browns, i.e. they become more selective. But generally, browns do indeed tend to dominate in places where trout are most selective, and brookies in places where they're least selective.

2. Life patterns. It's related to selectiveness, but a little different. This means whether a fish feeds 24/7, or only at night, or only from hour X to hour Y, etc. If they are light shy. How easily they turn on and off due to temperature variations. Etc. The fertility of the stream does indeed seem to play some role here too. But even in the very same stream, browns are typically more "moody" than brookies. In a stream that has both, some days I'll catch solely brookies. Other days I'll catch just as many brookies, but get lots of browns too. Rarely do I ever just get the browns. The brookies are almost always catchable to some degree. The browns turn on and off like someone threw a switch. Does that make them "harder"? On what days? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. But averaged overall, that has to be a yes, they are harder, cause in a stream with equal numbers of each, if I fish it a dozen times, I'll have caught more brookies.

Rainbows. Well, other than stockies, I have less experience. I will say that they seem to be less affected by colder than ideal water temps, and more affected by warmer than ideal ones. They also seem genetically programmed to eat egg patterns. Browns will do it during the sucker run and when eggs are actually on the dinner table. But rainbows will hit them year round. Even wild ones.

 

[geebee]

Lets be clear that we are talking 'fly fishing during the day' here.

Browns theoretically are mostly nocturnal feeders. If you try to catch em at night they are suckers for swung flies, big dries and poppers and sliders.

I don't think browns are the smartest, just the most full already ;0)

 

[salmonoid]

My opinion is that conditions more than anything else dictate the ease or difficulty of catching a given species. I only have practice with browns, 'bows, and brooks. I'm thinking in particular of one stream that I fished for soon to be 15 years. The first five years or so, I caught almost all brookies, with a rare brown thrown in. The water conditions were usually pretty low. I fished it during a rain storm one year and started hauling out a higher percentage of browns. And I've since fished it at night and brown catch rates are running about 10:1 to brooks. Last year, this was even more evident - following a high water event, I caught about 95% browns to 5% brooks. Just one day later, that percentage had completely reversed.

Regarding scientific documentation about the selectiveness of the species, I'd be curious to read those papers. In particular, are they comparing apples to apples? Just because a particular trout or char favors one fly more than another species doesn't mean there isn't another fly that wouldn't put the second species on top. I'd mostly like to see what constraints they placed on such a study and how many free variables were left (conditions, time of day, size of fish, time of year, etc.).

 

[geebee]

imho there are just too many variables to make a conclusion that will stand up to cross examination.

its why they call it fishing not catching.

 

[pcray1231]

I tried to acknowledge the conditions difference. But browns are just a little more "pickier" about having the right conditions, IMO, and it's also a little more unpredictable.

Brookie fishing gets better and worse with conditions. But it's rarely totally off, even when it sucks, it's still not hopeless.

But the swings with browns are a bit more pronounced. When brown trout turn off, it's like they don't exist and it's totally hopeless. When they turn on, it can get pretty crazy.

 

[PennypackFlyer]

It is easier for a fish to catch a person's attention than a person to catch a fish's attention. And we call us the smarter species.

geebee - I call it catching or practicing. (no fishing or skunking in my book)

 

[Eccles]

Thanks guys, that's a great response. And yes of course I realise it is difficult to draw any solid conclusions. I often read fisheries managers stating that one fish is more difficult to catch than another but the actual evidence, for all the reasons you guys mention below, is usually highly equivocal. I was curious what the general take is as 'fishing lore' can, sometimes, be right on the money because of the huge amount of accumulated experience the sport generates. And I always find this kind of thing interesting.

Fishidiot - Interesting. I know there was a study on how often the Yellowstone cutthroats get caught every season (a lot it turns out) but don't know of one comparing that to brown trout catch rates. I'll have another look. The school of thought you mention is interesting and has life in it yet. It's known that fish vary in their likelihood of being caught based on their individual 'personality' and since there is a genetic component to this trait it's conceivable that populations could become harder to catch over generations. Whether that has actually happened is another matter.

shortrod2 - yes certainly, which raises the question of whether species have different learning abilities to our flies. But that would be another topic I think.

Mike - I have read a lot of these studies and actually I find most of them confound their result with other factors so that just because, say, brook trout get caught more than browns is not necessarily because they are easier. There was a study on the Cheeseman Canyon of the South Platte (the western river Gierach often writes about) which had a good handle on angling effort, standing trout population, catch rates etc and showed fairly clearly that rainbows were caught more often then browns. If you're thinking of particular studies I wouldn't mind knowing what they are.

pcray1231 - That's interesting. Is this for brook and browns of equivalent size? Or does it tend to be that the brookies are smaller. It could be your 'moody' browns are already beginning to specialise on what they eat and the brookies haven't got there yet. Or one hundred and two other possibilities .........

geebee - Actually I don't think it matters too much whether it is during the day or not. Obviously trout do feed at night but they aren't very efficient at it. Stream insects drift at night as they is less chance of them being eaten - take away the trout and insects drift more in the day.

Salmonoid - no most of the papers I have looked at aren't comparing apples and apples. Not surprising really as it isn't a question that motivates scientists in particular. Most of the 'evidence' is suggested by data collected from studies designed for a slightly different purpose (fishery catch rates/population sampling etc).

 

[poopdeck]

My answer is prefaced with the fact that I do not read fishing magazines, articles, reports, studies or keep any kind of fishing logs. I do not watch fishing shows. I do not fish for any one kind of fish over the next and I have never fished for cutthroat trout.

That leaves my experience and my experience only. I find they are all simple. As a young kid I caught them all when some would say I had no idea what I was doing. Surely there were days when they didn't cooperate but for the most part a brookie is no more difficult to catch then a rainbow or a brown depending only on your timing and the waters being fished.

 

[pcray1231]

Is this for brook and browns of equivalent size?

Yeah, I think so. I don't have a ton of experience of brookies in more fertile waters. I do know they get pickier and begin to act more like browns, but I just don't have enough personal experience to say exactly how they behave. Some guys here are into Big Spring Creek which definitely has this situation, maybe they can shed some light.

In fertile waters, browns are very much creatures of habit. The small and medium fish often follow hatch schedules. The same fish will lay in a protected lie somewhere and not be feeding, then move up into a feeding lane in anticipation of a hatch. They anticipate it BEFORE it starts, and it takes them a bit to adjust to natural changes. If a new hatch starts suddenly, it will sometimes take them a few days to adjust. Sometimes they don't feed on it much the first day or two, and when they catch on the routine is changing, they're establishing feeding areas, fighting over feeding lies, etc. Then once established, they'll do the same day after day, and you can observe that very fish in the exact same spot. If there are a line of them, the pecking order stays the same.

Even after the hatch winds down, they keep doing it for a while. Likewise, when weather or something upsets a hatch or spinner fall, the fish are there, in position, waiting for it but end up disappointed.

The big ones generally ignore hatches, go nocturnal, and feed on baitfish. Our streamer/night fishing guys know all about this.

On infertile waterways is where I have some experience with brookies and browns co-existing. For the brookies, I have relatively good days, and relatively bad ones, but even on bad days I can usually catch some. The browns vary a lot more. Generally, when they're hitting, they're just as opportunistic as the brookies. i.e. they'll charge across the pool to hit a cigarette butt that looks nothing like any natural food item. It's not that they're more picky about what they eat. But the timing still seems to matter a lot. Some days you'd swear there's not a brown trout in that stream. Other days they seem to outnumber the brookies.

They also tend to physically separate in small, infertile streams. If there are browns in a hole, there are no brookies. So on the days the brown trout are turned "off", you get brookie stretches, and dead stretches. When the brownies turn "on", you discover the dead stretches are full of browns.

 

[Chaz]

I would argue that it's situation specific and is very dependent on the stream, how pressured it is, how good the hatches and food base is, then species.