Big water fishing and comment made yesterday
- Thread starter krayfish2
- Start date
phiendWMD
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2013
- Messages
- 826
If you think trout in big water can be frustrating for a noob you should try smallmouth. At least trout might rise and give a clue where to cast. I wont say SM don't rise because I've caught a couple on dries but that was mostly just stubbornness and dumb luck. The SM in the D really confuse me, even after quit a bit of time. Even worse is I can go to the Schuykill and catch them on the same flies and tactics like I almost know what I'm doing.
I've only fished the D and the Lehigh once each for trout. Neither went well at all but I'm certainly not done. Based on my history it's going to take me a long to figure out but like I mentioned before, I'm stubborn enough to not give up.
I've only fished the D and the Lehigh once each for trout. Neither went well at all but I'm certainly not done. Based on my history it's going to take me a long to figure out but like I mentioned before, I'm stubborn enough to not give up.
steveo27
Member
- Joined
- Jun 4, 2014
- Messages
- 919
Good read
Agreed 100%. I love fishing small mountain streams that are no more than a few feet wide. A lot of the "small streams" people talk about might as well be rivers to me.
I fished the Little J in early summer and to me, that was a large stream.
Later on in the summer, I finally had the chance to fish the middle yough. Intimidation doesnt even begin to describe it.
Way tough to read. Im sure once you fish water that size a few times, stuff starts to really make sense.
I did manage to catch a fingerling 'bow in the Yough on our first trip.
And, I cannot wait to fish the middle Yough again or try my hand at fishing the Allegheny
Agreed 100%. I love fishing small mountain streams that are no more than a few feet wide. A lot of the "small streams" people talk about might as well be rivers to me.
I fished the Little J in early summer and to me, that was a large stream.
Later on in the summer, I finally had the chance to fish the middle yough. Intimidation doesnt even begin to describe it.
Way tough to read. Im sure once you fish water that size a few times, stuff starts to really make sense.
I did manage to catch a fingerling 'bow in the Yough on our first trip.
And, I cannot wait to fish the middle Yough again or try my hand at fishing the Allegheny
Like was said above, big water is just a bunch of small water combined. So break it up into manageable pieces and treat it as such. The basics are the same and always will be, fish like cover and easy access to food no matter where they live. Identify those spots and go catch some fish...it's not rocket science.
blueheron
Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2010
- Messages
- 936
Fishing big water requires that you pay your dues, no matter how you slice it. I'm talking wading not getting rowed around. But that's exactly why I and many others fish, to study the situation and find the fish and what it takes to fool them. I hear people say that you just break the river into smaller pieces and fish it like a creek, never worked for me like that, I fish big water differently and view it differently than any smaller water. If you wade out as far as you can and can't hit the other bank with a cast, that's big water.
I agree with the smallmouth comments. The Susky in front of my place is nearly a mile wide. The only thing that's assists in keeping your sanity when bass fishing it.... you know that the bass favor structure. You can see a lot of it on the Susky. It doesn't mean that all structure holds bass but you're increasing your odds by hitting as much as possible. Bass also seem a bit easier to pattern than big water trout that tend to roam around.
Something that hasn't been mentioned about the "challenges" of big water fishing: Low numbers of fish.
On some of the big waters.
On the Susquehanna before the bass population crash, the bass were very numerous, and it wasn't all that challenging, even for people with not a lot of experience, to catch decent numbers of bass.
After the population crash, the Susque became much more "challenging." Because there were far fewer fish.
The physical nature of the river hadn't changed.
On some of the big waters.
On the Susquehanna before the bass population crash, the bass were very numerous, and it wasn't all that challenging, even for people with not a lot of experience, to catch decent numbers of bass.
After the population crash, the Susque became much more "challenging." Because there were far fewer fish.
The physical nature of the river hadn't changed.
Midge22
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 169
its been touched on briefly, but most do not truly realize how much trout move in a system. There are a few streams that allow this to be a bit more obvious (Lehigh, Delaware as examples), but this happens everywhere. In big water, half of the battle is honestly being on the right section of river (this is why floating out west is such a big thing).
Its a lot easier to find feeding fish when you have the ability to cover miles and miles of river versus wading.
Ever notice sometimes even on spring creek that some sections seem void of fish (not spooking many etc), then you move, and there are fish everywhere? this changes daily and is what makes the big rivers even more of a challenge.
Its a lot easier to find feeding fish when you have the ability to cover miles and miles of river versus wading.
Ever notice sometimes even on spring creek that some sections seem void of fish (not spooking many etc), then you move, and there are fish everywhere? this changes daily and is what makes the big rivers even more of a challenge.
TB,
We've averaged 50+ bass per trip this year in sizes from 4" - 21". I know PFBC studies show low numbers but I've proved to a few guys that the river isn't 'dead' as some have labeled it.
The second thing you mentioned is lower trout numbers in big water is true but also misleading. If you look at a big water scenario and take 5 miles of water......that section might hold 3800 trout. In that 5 mile section, only 3 miles of it is actual holding water for trout. Through experience or reading the water, you can eliminate the bad water and put your efforts in on the better water. It's like coming to a shallow riff on spring....too thin to hold fish so you move to the next pool. It's just super sized on big water and not as easy to pick up on many times.
I'm with midge.....covering miles increases cances to find the fish and / or feeding fish. Another thing that makes big water difficult and exhausting.
Someone mentioned dividing the river up onto smaller streams.Not sure how well that works and iit's not possible in many many sections. Look at Stockport riff on main stem of D. IIt's 250'-350' wide and the riff is over a 1/2 mile long. It would take a month or two to 'grid it off' and fish it. Looking at waterr, reading quickly allows you to cover it quickly and efficiently. Floating through in 30 minutes and picking up 2 fish is more enjoyable to me than spending 9 hours pounding it on foot to get 1-2 fish.
We've averaged 50+ bass per trip this year in sizes from 4" - 21". I know PFBC studies show low numbers but I've proved to a few guys that the river isn't 'dead' as some have labeled it.
The second thing you mentioned is lower trout numbers in big water is true but also misleading. If you look at a big water scenario and take 5 miles of water......that section might hold 3800 trout. In that 5 mile section, only 3 miles of it is actual holding water for trout. Through experience or reading the water, you can eliminate the bad water and put your efforts in on the better water. It's like coming to a shallow riff on spring....too thin to hold fish so you move to the next pool. It's just super sized on big water and not as easy to pick up on many times.
I'm with midge.....covering miles increases cances to find the fish and / or feeding fish. Another thing that makes big water difficult and exhausting.
Someone mentioned dividing the river up onto smaller streams.Not sure how well that works and iit's not possible in many many sections. Look at Stockport riff on main stem of D. IIt's 250'-350' wide and the riff is over a 1/2 mile long. It would take a month or two to 'grid it off' and fish it. Looking at waterr, reading quickly allows you to cover it quickly and efficiently. Floating through in 30 minutes and picking up 2 fish is more enjoyable to me than spending 9 hours pounding it on foot to get 1-2 fish.
dryflyguy
Well-known member
Not knocking floating large streams.
However, once you fish and learn them - (the good ones) - there are definitely spots that consistently hold fish.
On the D, you can always find feeding fish at the junction hole. Or on the West Branch, the game lands.
Just park and wade in.
No need to float miles and shuttle around.
Different strokes for different folks
However, once you fish and learn them - (the good ones) - there are definitely spots that consistently hold fish.
On the D, you can always find feeding fish at the junction hole. Or on the West Branch, the game lands.
Just park and wade in.
No need to float miles and shuttle around.
Different strokes for different folks
Sure, but who said you need to grid off and fish the entire riffle? You don't fish the entire thing from a boat, why do so on foot? Split it up into manageable sizes, use your observation skillz and fish that beat like you would any other stretch of water. You might only catch two while drifting thru, but on foot you can pick it apart more intimately, and will more than likely catch more than 2 in the hours you spend there. Observe and prospect the big water by working one stretch like you would any smaller water, maybe pick one up here or there, figure out the pattern and then target those similar lies within the larger picture...300' wide riffle? Concentrate on just one stretch to start and fish it up or down in that 20-30' run in front of you and if say you're catching fish out of knee deep potholes or from in front of/behind structure, then identify and concentrate on similar areas within the big picture and skip the shin deep broken water or the waist deep holes that aren't producing.
Out west on the Snake fishing it from the bank and wading out to maybe knee deep I'd watch as the drifters would come down thru and they might pick up one fish from here, one from there, meanwhile I was able to pick those spots apart and hook up with say three or four from the same areas those in the boats could only take a passing shot at. They covered a lot more water than I did, but I'd guess our fish counts were probably similar at the end of the day...
Maybe just maybe most anglers don't take themselves as seriously as a few do. To talk about getting a laugh at what others are doing is the essence of the elitist stereotype of fly fishing. Personally fishing is not a challenge. It's just fishing. Sometimes you catch a lot sometimes you don't. It's just flat out enjoyable. I agree with Tomitrout. Fishing is fishing, water is water, and fish are fish. I'm quite sure If you watch me all day you will wet yourself laughing at some point.
The point being with breaking a larger river down into more manageable sections is that you don't really need to get overwhelmed or intimidated because of a rivers' size. Sometimes the fish are right at your feet. No need to cast to the far bank to get what is right on your doorstep. Sure, in a boat, you can reach more areas that are not accessible to a wader and cover more water over a stretch of river, but that does not mean you necessarily catch more fish that way. It is the "grass is always greener on the other side" philosophy IMO.
Big river fishing is a bit different, and fishing on the D River in particular is often really different than many/most rivers I've fished.
Some sections of the D may fish totally different than others on any given day. If you compare notes at the end of the day with other that fished the River, it never ceases to amaze me how different the fishing and hatches (or lack thereof) is on any given day. This can occur in areas not really that far apart.
Andy is a floater at heart. And I agree that floating 7 or 8 miles of river allows you to find active fish. Even on a slow day, in an eight mile float you are likely to spot and cover 100 risers. Of those 100 risers you may hook 10 and actually land 4 or 5 fish. It's a numbers game. Add 4 or 5 fish you may catch while nymphing the riffs and you have a decent day.
If you are wading, nothing much may be happening in the section of river you chose for the day or you may see rising fish out of your casting range or in an area that's unwadeable.
I myself really love to wade and fish an area thoroughly rather than floating by and chucking a few casts. The solution?....float down and fish, but get out and wade key spots to fish them thoroughly. This allows you to find the active fish and the hatches....the best of both worlds and most enjoyable for me.
Some sections of the D may fish totally different than others on any given day. If you compare notes at the end of the day with other that fished the River, it never ceases to amaze me how different the fishing and hatches (or lack thereof) is on any given day. This can occur in areas not really that far apart.
Andy is a floater at heart. And I agree that floating 7 or 8 miles of river allows you to find active fish. Even on a slow day, in an eight mile float you are likely to spot and cover 100 risers. Of those 100 risers you may hook 10 and actually land 4 or 5 fish. It's a numbers game. Add 4 or 5 fish you may catch while nymphing the riffs and you have a decent day.
If you are wading, nothing much may be happening in the section of river you chose for the day or you may see rising fish out of your casting range or in an area that's unwadeable.
I myself really love to wade and fish an area thoroughly rather than floating by and chucking a few casts. The solution?....float down and fish, but get out and wade key spots to fish them thoroughly. This allows you to find the active fish and the hatches....the best of both worlds and most enjoyable for me.
Tomi,
Spend a week up there and you'll understand what Tom is saying. You can fish / sit at the top of a poll for 8 hours. Not a rise, no bugs. Your buddy is 1/2 mile away at the tail of the pool. Blanket hatches all day long, hundreds of fish feeding and a camera full of proof. It's one of the craziest place to try and unlock. You sit at the diner in the morning and listen to fishermen. "Did you guys hit that caddis swarm?". Other guy says "Caddis? We had blanket hatch of blue quills, olives and grey fox". Guy in booth behind them turns around "Where was that? We had a heavy drake dun emergence most of the afternoon".
Tom,
I haven't been float all THAT long. Waded it for years. I can say that wading is much more enjoyable and usually more productive.....unless you are rowing down ahead of the hatches. The real benefit of floating is accessing fish that can't be reached by foot and vacating dead water quickly for more productive pools. The downside of floating is the potential traffic jam of boats, high wind and the likelihood that you row right past good fishing. Given the choice, I'll take float 90% of the time as its dramatically increased the number of fish put in the net. Some days it's just covering miles and hope for the best. Other times of the year, is short floats with lots of anchoring and wading. When it comes to streamer fishing, there's no comparison.
I think there some agreement that locating fish on large water is only one of the hurdles. To me, wind is the other real demon you have to deal with. If you can get 40' from a feeding fish but the wind is steady in your face at 20-25" that fish might as well be a mile away. Conditions will not allow you to wade into a position that puts the wind at your back or your side. That's something not typically dealt with while fishing he LL or small brookie stream. Fly fishing is hard enough and big water adds a few more variables that usually make it tougher. I love the punishment / challenge.
Tom, I owe you a float next time we are both up there.
Spend a week up there and you'll understand what Tom is saying. You can fish / sit at the top of a poll for 8 hours. Not a rise, no bugs. Your buddy is 1/2 mile away at the tail of the pool. Blanket hatches all day long, hundreds of fish feeding and a camera full of proof. It's one of the craziest place to try and unlock. You sit at the diner in the morning and listen to fishermen. "Did you guys hit that caddis swarm?". Other guy says "Caddis? We had blanket hatch of blue quills, olives and grey fox". Guy in booth behind them turns around "Where was that? We had a heavy drake dun emergence most of the afternoon".
Tom,
I haven't been float all THAT long. Waded it for years. I can say that wading is much more enjoyable and usually more productive.....unless you are rowing down ahead of the hatches. The real benefit of floating is accessing fish that can't be reached by foot and vacating dead water quickly for more productive pools. The downside of floating is the potential traffic jam of boats, high wind and the likelihood that you row right past good fishing. Given the choice, I'll take float 90% of the time as its dramatically increased the number of fish put in the net. Some days it's just covering miles and hope for the best. Other times of the year, is short floats with lots of anchoring and wading. When it comes to streamer fishing, there's no comparison.
I think there some agreement that locating fish on large water is only one of the hurdles. To me, wind is the other real demon you have to deal with. If you can get 40' from a feeding fish but the wind is steady in your face at 20-25" that fish might as well be a mile away. Conditions will not allow you to wade into a position that puts the wind at your back or your side. That's something not typically dealt with while fishing he LL or small brookie stream. Fly fishing is hard enough and big water adds a few more variables that usually make it tougher. I love the punishment / challenge.
Tom, I owe you a float next time we are both up there.
salvelinusfontinalis
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 7,267
Agreed.
Having fished all over the state and about 300 different streams and rivers, it's true. I've missed the Bwo hatch on the tort while upstream they are everywhere and my buddy is hammering them. However these "odd to us" changes between sections of rivers is amplified on larger rivers.
However, without causing a huge fight over nothing, you cannot compare the letort to any watershed in the state.
IMO the most difficult stream in PA and lots of secrets. IMO the biggest concern on a big water is locating migrating fish,reading water and conditions. The biggest concern on the Letort, everything. ;-)
