Steelhead in the Delaware River?
- Thread starter SBecker
- Start date
PENZZZ
Member
SBecker,
Yes, long ago I heard those stories of steelhead being stocked in the Little Lehigh in the 60's. Going along with the stories were reports of fishermen catching one now and then at the base of the Lehigh River, because it was said the Steelhead couldn't get over the dam and into the Lehigh.
Jeff
Yes, long ago I heard those stories of steelhead being stocked in the Little Lehigh in the 60's. Going along with the stories were reports of fishermen catching one now and then at the base of the Lehigh River, because it was said the Steelhead couldn't get over the dam and into the Lehigh.
Jeff
You could always sacrifice a male and female steelhead an get the eggs from the female an put them in a live well immediately take the male an squeeze the milt onto the eggs an keep the eggs in a live well with a powerhead to put a lil current on it till you get home, place some eggs in two halfs of a strawberry plastic green cage an place in some gravel..start your own run.i wouldnt do it but hey knock yer socks off
Ouch - bucket biology has done a lot of damage over the years. Bigger organizations screw up too, but some work in preserving heritage trout from the Adirondacks to out West has gone up in smoke because somebody figured they knew better. Plus there are the diseases. For example, NJ is thankfully VHS free for the moment; Lake Ontario is not. I'd hate to spread another disease to a crowded state where the fish are subject to all kinds of stresses already. VHS did weird things to the Finger Lakes - don't care to see it spread.
I'm not big on spreading fish all over, but if you do try it the legal way and get a permit and assure the fish are disease free.
There are differences between the migratory and non-migratory trout - but not as much as you may think. All trout have some migratory past since 15,000 years ago the trout range was basically all under a sheet of ice and the trout had to migrate to recolonize the cold water environments. The California rainbows migrate quite a lot since the Sierra streams that are their home are subject to severe droughts and floods and fish move into areas with low populations. Therefore, I think some of the Delaware rainbows would show some seagoing behavior if the enviroment were right for it.
I'm not big on spreading fish all over, but if you do try it the legal way and get a permit and assure the fish are disease free.
There are differences between the migratory and non-migratory trout - but not as much as you may think. All trout have some migratory past since 15,000 years ago the trout range was basically all under a sheet of ice and the trout had to migrate to recolonize the cold water environments. The California rainbows migrate quite a lot since the Sierra streams that are their home are subject to severe droughts and floods and fish move into areas with low populations. Therefore, I think some of the Delaware rainbows would show some seagoing behavior if the enviroment were right for it.
cmkracken wrote;
"Those 16-18 inch fish are a waste of time...(if youre going to drive all the way to the delaware you might as well target the pigs not the chickens)"
Your comment suggests that you have disdain for 16" - 18" wild browns & rainbows. The inference, at least to me, is you catch far larger trout. Do you catch 18"+ fish frequently?
I'd venture to bet 95% of the members of this forum would be pretty damn excited to be catching all those "waste of time" 16" - 18" trout that you seem to have little regard for.
I fish the Delaware system probably as much, or more, than most people on this forum, and have done so, for over twenty years. To suggest that 16" - 18" wild trout are a "waste of time" does a disservice to the trout and the fishery.
The average Delaware system (WB, EB, & main) trout is far less than 16". I'd venture to say the average WB & EB trout is more in the 12" - 14" range and at that size is a great fighter for it's size. Possibly 15" - 16" is average for the main stem.
I've caught dozens of 20" + trout on the system but still love to catch those 14" - 16" youngsters that eat the fly eagerly. Even back in the late 1960's to early 1980's before the system received all the hype and became "the Big Horn of the East" Haha! any fish of 17" and bigger was considered a very nice trout.
If you are going to judge a trip to the system by how many over 18" trout you put in the net you are likely going to go home dissatisfied. I used to keep a log and there are hundreds of 12" -17" trout and maybe a dozen or two 18"+ - 20". In over forty years on the Delaware I've only landed two honest, measured, rainbows of over 20". One was 21" caught below Lordville in the spring on a #14 Adams and the other was 22" caught on a #16 Rusty spinner below Hancock.
Browns are another story and they are far more common now than they were thirty years ago. Either I've gotten better or they have gotten bigger because back in the 70's & 80's a 20" brown was a great fish on any of the rivers.
While it is exciting to catch 20" and larger trout I'll be more than happy to catch those "waste of time" trout all day long!
"Those 16-18 inch fish are a waste of time...(if youre going to drive all the way to the delaware you might as well target the pigs not the chickens)"
Your comment suggests that you have disdain for 16" - 18" wild browns & rainbows. The inference, at least to me, is you catch far larger trout. Do you catch 18"+ fish frequently?
I'd venture to bet 95% of the members of this forum would be pretty damn excited to be catching all those "waste of time" 16" - 18" trout that you seem to have little regard for.
I fish the Delaware system probably as much, or more, than most people on this forum, and have done so, for over twenty years. To suggest that 16" - 18" wild trout are a "waste of time" does a disservice to the trout and the fishery.
The average Delaware system (WB, EB, & main) trout is far less than 16". I'd venture to say the average WB & EB trout is more in the 12" - 14" range and at that size is a great fighter for it's size. Possibly 15" - 16" is average for the main stem.
I've caught dozens of 20" + trout on the system but still love to catch those 14" - 16" youngsters that eat the fly eagerly. Even back in the late 1960's to early 1980's before the system received all the hype and became "the Big Horn of the East" Haha! any fish of 17" and bigger was considered a very nice trout.
If you are going to judge a trip to the system by how many over 18" trout you put in the net you are likely going to go home dissatisfied. I used to keep a log and there are hundreds of 12" -17" trout and maybe a dozen or two 18"+ - 20". In over forty years on the Delaware I've only landed two honest, measured, rainbows of over 20". One was 21" caught below Lordville in the spring on a #14 Adams and the other was 22" caught on a #16 Rusty spinner below Hancock.
Browns are another story and they are far more common now than they were thirty years ago. Either I've gotten better or they have gotten bigger because back in the 70's & 80's a 20" brown was a great fish on any of the rivers.
While it is exciting to catch 20" and larger trout I'll be more than happy to catch those "waste of time" trout all day long!
