Driftless Trout Anglers

Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

3 Pages<123>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
NBrevitz  
#11 Posted : Monday, March 11, 2019 5:54:20 PM(UTC)
NBrevitz
Rank: Super Fly

Joined: 3/16/2013(UTC)
Posts: 1,485
Man
Location: Lake Elmo, Mn

Thanks: 52 times
Was thanked: 54 time(s) in 45 post(s)
My problem with Browns is when they take over water that could easily still support Brookies. Gribben Creek in SE MN is a great example. Pine Creek by Maiden Rock has gotten overrun with Browns recently, just in the time that I’ve been fishing hard (6 years), that stream has flipped over on its head. I’m starting to not even fish for Browns as I just get mad when I catch one on what should be just Brookie water. Didn’t really enjoy my PB 23 last summer since I was trophy hunting Brookies. Thankfully Browns don’t do too well there so I let him go against my better judgement.

Look at the upper Kinni. It never tops 62 degrees, it’s sandy as hell, it’s perfect for Brookies... Yet it’s overrun with Brown Trout. Bastards

Something like the Sugar, Namekagon, or Lower W FK Kickapoo? Hell yeah let’s manage for Browns.

The issue is, Browns prevent Brookies from using the lower reaches of watersheds and getting big. All my 16+ Fish have come from watersheds with very few, if any Browns, and access to marginal water with lots or baitfish. We won’t get big Brookies back if we restrict them to headwaters. They are very willing to migrate, look at Canadian populations! Resident fish will move up to 30 miles throughout the season on big rivers like the Albany.

And Brookies are more resilient than people give them credit for. They continue to do just fine in NE WI, where stream temps run into the 70s essentially all of July. They’ve survived record hot summers. We could reforest a lot of our streams and keep them cold with even the worst of the climate change outlooks.
"I fish because I love to: Because only in the woods can I find solitude without loneliness."
shebs  
#12 Posted : Tuesday, March 12, 2019 12:43:01 AM(UTC)
shebs
Rank: Dragon Fly

Joined: 5/12/2014(UTC)
Posts: 1,023
Location: Mpls

Thanks: 9 times
Was thanked: 46 time(s) in 38 post(s)
Originally Posted by: weiliwen Go to Quoted Post


Seems to me that many Driftless streams have browns up to a certain point, and brookies only above that. I'm sure that's not absolute, but I could imagine putting in the rotenone there, killing all fish below, and letting the brookies above there re-populate the lower stretches. Then they'd be, if not native, at least the same brookies that are there now.


The trouble with this approach is that browns from connected watersheds would almost certainly re-colonize the stream within a few years. Even the mighty Mississippi (and, I presume, the Wisconsin as well) has browns in the winter, and they'd certainly find their way back into those streams - like they did in the Pine and Gribben Creeks referenced above by Brevitz. It would really only be effective long term if there was some kind of barrier to prevent them from coming back from the lower ends, which would prevent any brookies from utilizing the lower marginal water, getting big, and returning to spawn. Unfortunately, the horse is out of the barn - so there isn't much sense in trying to close the door now.

And FWIW, Brevitz, some streams seems to do that in cycles. I talked to the landowner on Parker Creek, a trib to the upper Kinni, and he says that stream has gone from brookie dominant to brown dominant and back many times in the 60 years he's been there. I assume some years favor reproduction of one species or another, and so there is a chance this could happen to Pine and Gribben in another few years, though I'm sure there are other factors involved too.

But you're certainly right about brookies being more resilient than people think. Hell, they survive on the north shore, which has almost no spring influence, and I've found water temps regularly at 72-74+ with feeding brookies. Best not to fish them at that temp, unless you plan to eat them, but there wouldn't be any brookies up there if they couldn't tolerate it to some extent.

Edited by user Tuesday, March 12, 2019 12:48:47 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

A bad day of fishing is better than a good day of work. ~Author Unknown
Modern Translation, with respect for the Notorious B.I.G. : "Fuck Money, Get Fishes"
NBrevitz  
#13 Posted : Tuesday, March 12, 2019 5:06:03 AM(UTC)
NBrevitz
Rank: Super Fly

Joined: 3/16/2013(UTC)
Posts: 1,485
Man
Location: Lake Elmo, Mn

Thanks: 52 times
Was thanked: 54 time(s) in 45 post(s)
Shebs, good points. There are some streams that could handle some sort of barrier. Even then, they don’t work 100% of the time. Coolridge has a barrier, and I’ve caught Browns above it. They were hastily dispatched as I apologized to them... Dams are just about the only thing that can keep them out. If I ever end up in charge in Pierce County, you might see some interesting projects on the Rush...😂

In terms of temps, it’s very interesting when you look at populations in eastern Wisconsin, the UP, and even the E Coast. Most Catskill streams just outside of NYC are very low and warm in the summer, but the Brookies persist. That well known trophy stream near Antigo gets pretty warm during hot spells. Springfed or not, it doesn’t have much gradient and it gets sunbaked. It still averages 2000 Brookies a mile with some real toads around. They’re convinced the Brookies evolved over the last 150 years to deal with the warmer temps.

I feel like part of our issue is trying to maximize our fishing opportunities at the expense of Brookies. Even if the lower reaches of a stream get too warm at times, that doesn’t mean the fish can’t migrate upstream temporarily. I’ve seen some Brookie sections get VERY warm, and after a cooldown, I’ll return 2 weeks later, the fish are there and they sure as hell weren’t fresh stockers. This is a spot you’ve fished several times, once with me.

I have no problem with Browns in spots we can’t reclaim for Brookies, but for god’s sake let’s help Brookies where we can after raping them for 150 years straight. I’d like to see 5 lb fish show up regularly in the Driftless before I’m too old to chase them around.
"I fish because I love to: Because only in the woods can I find solitude without loneliness."
rschmidt  
#14 Posted : Tuesday, March 12, 2019 5:20:46 AM(UTC)
rschmidt
Rank: Stone Fly

Joined: 1/16/2015(UTC)
Posts: 560
Location: West WI

Thanks: 26 times
Was thanked: 47 time(s) in 42 post(s)
I think Shebs is on to something here. Introducing the invasive was a mistake, but we are stuck with it. The browns are genetically fit to conquer that world and they will beat the brookies everywhere they try to coexist.

Just like the alewife and perch succumbed to the mussels and the goby now thrives because it eats mussels, and because the lake trout are adapting to eat gobies and they will return on a scale unseen in 40 years. The salmon days are coming to a close on the great lakes. I fear the brookie ain't that far behind on inland waters where man has corrupted nature.

Sad reality, perhaps even my grandchildren won't be chasing shit, well maybe trophy asian, bighead, and black carp.

R
Gurth  
#15 Posted : Tuesday, March 12, 2019 9:21:17 AM(UTC)
Gurth
Rank: Dragon Fly

Joined: 11/7/2016(UTC)
Posts: 1,222
Man
Location: Madison

Thanks: 95 times
Was thanked: 115 time(s) in 91 post(s)
The only times I’d be a in favor would be to eliminate an invasive non gamefish that is destroying habitat or to protect a fragile heritage population although what’s left of those down here are generally in spots that browns wouldn’t go anyway.

To try and eliminate a viable population of browns to allow genetically impure brookies to have the territory seems like a waste to me. Just replacing one stocked fish strain with another, even if it is the superficial “native” fish.





“Harvest eaters... release trophies.” -Gurth
Private correspondence at: jkschind "at" tds.net
MN Driftless  
#16 Posted : Wednesday, March 13, 2019 10:55:51 AM(UTC)
MN Driftless
Rank: Midge

Joined: 5/15/2016(UTC)
Posts: 26
Man
United States
Location: The Driftless

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 3 post(s)
Quote:
To try and eliminate a viable population of browns to allow genetically impure brookies to have the territory seems like a waste to me.


Bingo.

I do have a preference for brook trout and certainly enjoy catching them. The strain that exists now, the Heritage Strain, is a product of stocking Eastern brook trout that have acclimated to Midwestern waters and are not called the Heritage Strain.

Gurth  
#17 Posted : Wednesday, March 13, 2019 2:11:56 PM(UTC)
Gurth
Rank: Dragon Fly

Joined: 11/7/2016(UTC)
Posts: 1,222
Man
Location: Madison

Thanks: 95 times
Was thanked: 115 time(s) in 91 post(s)
According to the DNR, there are in fact pockets of genetically pure native Wisconsin trout. I've caught a few, which was cool… and humbling.

There are a couple spots that I know of in the Boo Ridge area and a couple in Crawford. I'm sure elsewhere as well.

These are tough to access headwaters and small streams and/or pocket water. Like I said… places that browns won't likely ever go.

I love catching brook trout as well. I have several places that I go just to catch them.

They are mutts for the most part and I don't have a problem with that as they ultimately become wild fish after a generation or two.

If you check out the podcast I linked about brown trout origins, it talks about their ability to adapt and change in their environment and how quickly this can happen – within a few generations. They become new genetically identifiable and distinguishable "species" in that short amount of time.

Not sure if that same principle applies to char, but if it does, there are new strains of brook trout already in places where they thrive and are no longer supplemented by stocking.

All that said and after a childhood of catching nothing but 7-9 inch brook trout in the North Woods, I'm more than happy to chase brownies these days as well.

Don't get me wrong, I have fond memories of those North Woods stream jewels and that beautiful setting and that time of exploration. I still go to places like that, but I enjoy the diversity of experiences that I now enjoy.

I wouldn't care if rainbows went away in places where they can't reproduce, but their presence doesn't bother me.

“Harvest eaters... release trophies.” -Gurth
Private correspondence at: jkschind "at" tds.net
NBrevitz  
#18 Posted : Wednesday, March 13, 2019 2:39:42 PM(UTC)
NBrevitz
Rank: Super Fly

Joined: 3/16/2013(UTC)
Posts: 1,485
Man
Location: Lake Elmo, Mn

Thanks: 52 times
Was thanked: 54 time(s) in 45 post(s)
Gurth, there are many unique strains of Brook Trout and other Char around the world. Fortress Lake in BC was stocked with Nipigon Strain Brookies, and they’ve begun adapting to their very different environment. That stream I referenced near Antigo is thought to have a unique strain. Then there are the Aurora Trout, and a couple other regional oddballs.

A native from Maine looks a bit different when compared to our natives, and the S Appalachian fish seem to have a slightly different body shape.

From what I’ve gathered, they’ve found the Nipigon, S Appalachian, Driftless, Moosehead Lake and Western Maine, N Salter, and Adirondack Strains of Brookies. And obviously there’s the Aurora Trout, which is extremely unique for its coloration. And the various mutts we’ve produced from most of the above.

There’s at least one subspecies of Arctic Char in N America alone, possibly 3. They’re known as Blueback, Sunapee, or Quebec Red Trout. Remenant populations of Bluebacks were found, but those called Sunapee Trout are gone I believe. That said, I think they’re the same strain of landlocked Char.

To my understanding, there are still a few streams in the MN Driftless with pure heritage Brookies, I know there’s a couple near the Dells.
"I fish because I love to: Because only in the woods can I find solitude without loneliness."
MN Driftless  
#19 Posted : Thursday, March 14, 2019 12:05:23 AM(UTC)
MN Driftless
Rank: Midge

Joined: 5/15/2016(UTC)
Posts: 26
Man
United States
Location: The Driftless

Was thanked: 4 time(s) in 3 post(s)
Just to be clear, heritage does not mean native.

https://www.dnr.state.mn...mar-apr/brook-trout.html
Gurth  
#20 Posted : Thursday, March 14, 2019 1:55:20 AM(UTC)
Gurth
Rank: Dragon Fly

Joined: 11/7/2016(UTC)
Posts: 1,222
Man
Location: Madison

Thanks: 95 times
Was thanked: 115 time(s) in 91 post(s)
I'm not sure that WI DNR uses "heritage" the same way.

This is from a report...

"Above this point, _________ Creek is quite small and has a naturally reproducing brook trout population. This brook trout population is considered to be a heritage population and represents the only known population of the historic Coulee Region brook trout."

In other parts of the report, the term Remnant Native Brook Trout is used, so I've always took it to mean that these are distinct brook trout strains.

Can't find it, but I know I've read of a couple of other places near the Baraboo Ridge where they use this term for isolated populations where stocking has never occurred.

I caught brookies at the stream mentioned above and at a couple of the places near the Baraboo Ridge.


I like the article you posted. Thanks.

Edited by user Thursday, March 14, 2019 2:06:09 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

“Harvest eaters... release trophies.” -Gurth
Private correspondence at: jkschind "at" tds.net
Users browsing this topic
Similar Topics
Rotenone in a lake down the street from my house. (Environmental & Conservation News)
by Trout_Patzer 11/19/2010 3:37:27 PM(UTC)
3 Pages<123>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Powered by YAF.NET | YAF.NET © 2003-2019, Yet Another Forum.NET
This page was generated in 0.338 seconds.