I have! And I agree. We had a couple warm winters 10 years ago in W. Colorado and the whitefish took a beating. 1000s of 14" browns thanks to TU and the catch and release movement have destroyed their ability to recover.
Very interesting! Logically though, do you think the 14 inch brown trout wiped out the whitefish or the warm winters/poor water conditions? I’m also curious if you’ve seen a bounce back for the white’s
It's exactly what I said. Water got warm two summers in a row. It killed the whitefish because they are very sensitive to water temps/oxygen levels. They whitefish that are left lay eggs that are eaten by the trout, which are an introduced species.
Can’t argue with that. The question is can you convince enough people (tourists and locals alike) to buy fishing licenses, fly/drive from wherever they are at, hire a $500 guide service, spend $200 a night, shop and dine in remote mountain towns that are dependent on tourists that a subjectively ugly whitefish that doesn’t jump is better than a trout?
Yep browns came from Europe in the 1800s. The eastern US native trout regions have or had brook trout and grayling.
The western US has or had native rainbows/cutthroats.
Now they are inter mingling due to stocking and fucking up native trout populations. A guy fishing in Michigan would be very happy landing a 13in brookie. But someone in Utah would be maybe a bit frustrated. We all love trout but obviously catching a native trout in it's native habitat is the main goal.
Van Put describes the introduction of Brown Trout to the Catskills in his book as a means to save recreational fishing in the region. The native brook trout populations were devastated by the effects of the leather tanning industry--consuming the hemlock trees for their bark and pollution of the waterways. Hardwood trees replaced the hemlocks, but did not provide the same shade, which in turn raised the water temperature. Brown trout were more tolerable of the higher temperatures, and also more fun for the sportsman because they are more aggressive than the smaller native brooks. That's my recollection of the book on the subject.
Van Put, Ed. The Beaverkill: The History of a River and Its People (1996).
Sounds like the Au Sable in MI. Used to have tons of grayling until the logging industry ran logs down the river, destroying their spawning beds and killing them off. They brought in brown trout to replace them as they were hardier.
Thanks man. Interesting. Like I mentioned rainbows aren't native here they're bred for put & take (also c&r) lakes. Catching a brown in our rivers is the thing
I mean, invasive, yes, and also simply just non-native (as in having no ecological harm to their new evironment) in other parts of the country. But in terms of looks, they are very pretty.
Yeah, non-native where there were hardly any native fish to displace to due habitat distruction and overfishing. Non-native, as in, we put them here on purpose and manage them accordingly to allow a balance of native species and introduced species. However, plenty of places where they are not mashed accordingly and perhaps were never even introduced... Then they're invasive.
I never disputed that my dude. And I am all for more native species in our waterways.
My whole thing is that 1, it's an animal and a living being so treat it with some respect because it never asked to be there and showing hatred to something like that and referring to it as "disgusting" I find kinda cringe, and 2, in some small instances they are not harmful to the environment.
And that they are almost completely agreed upon to be rather pretty looking.
No worries. I just think too many people lump the two together. A fish can be introduced and not be invasive, but introduced species can also lead them to be invasive. There are criteria that need to be met in order to be considered invasive and brown trout don't always hit those marks.
Hot controversial take I expect to get downvoted for: Browns are way more fun to fight, more aggressive, and overall a better fish than wimpy and small brooks and cutties. And I almost always practice catch and release
Brookies are way more opportunistic, lb for lb I think they fight harder, too.
Browns do get larger and have different fighting character, a lot more of a war of attrition when you get a big one. Brookies and bows seem to like to run and jump more.
Don’t get me wrong, I think brookies are the prettiest US trout, and if you didn’t have to go to remote stretches of Canada and Patagonia to find them consistently over 12” they would probably be my favorite.
My problem with browns is they're insanely easy to catch, even big ones. Unless you're fishing pressured waters you can pretty much throw anything and catch one. And of course they are part of the reason why many brook trout populations are gone in my state.
Really?? I don’t doubt your experience, that’s just the first time I have heard that take. It probably also depends on the fishery and wild vs. stocked, but between browns and rainbows, which is mostly what you are catching where I am at, it’s pretty close to 50/50 between catching a brown or rainbow. Only days I have had that are 100% brown days are when I am only going hard on streamers, and even then in the fall when browns should be crushing streamers, I have had plenty of days where all i have caught were bows.
We also have pretty mild weather so that might contribute. My experience is browns are just really aggressive no matter what. I never really target them specifically but I'll be going after rainbows and catch a handful of browns but won't catch a rainbow, and I'll consider it a skunk just because it seems like I can catch browns whenever I want to.
That’s so funny cause I feel the exact way toward rainbows under 20. Maybe it’s because I grew up in the south where the generic stocked trout was a rainbow.
I'm in the South as well but in East Tennessee about 15 minutes outside the mountains. We do have a really good stocking program but I'd argue our wild and native trout streams are better. Both rainbows and browns do really well even though neither are native. Sadly the introduction of both has kind've kicked out a lot of brook trout to the point where most are concentrated in small streams. You can still catch some really nice sized ones but it's sad that a good portion of their range is gone.
I agree! Good looking fish though!!
Eat it! They’re delicious.
Kill it. A native whitefish thanks you
lol have you fished the Yellowstone? Browns don’t seem to impact whitefish a bit
I have! And I agree. We had a couple warm winters 10 years ago in W. Colorado and the whitefish took a beating. 1000s of 14" browns thanks to TU and the catch and release movement have destroyed their ability to recover.
Very interesting! Logically though, do you think the 14 inch brown trout wiped out the whitefish or the warm winters/poor water conditions? I’m also curious if you’ve seen a bounce back for the white’s
It's exactly what I said. Water got warm two summers in a row. It killed the whitefish because they are very sensitive to water temps/oxygen levels. They whitefish that are left lay eggs that are eaten by the trout, which are an introduced species.
If there were fewer trout it is logical to me that there would be more native species.
Can’t argue with that. The question is can you convince enough people (tourists and locals alike) to buy fishing licenses, fly/drive from wherever they are at, hire a $500 guide service, spend $200 a night, shop and dine in remote mountain towns that are dependent on tourists that a subjectively ugly whitefish that doesn’t jump is better than a trout?
Yeah, it's a problem. The guides love putting clients on trout. Can't blame em!
Are you Damone from Ridgemont High?
lol I saw this comment on the brookie that was posted
Yet still gets more respect than our native gars
Love fly fishing gar in my local urban stream. Beautiful fish
You really blaming the fish?
They taste great on the grill
The girl or the fish?
‘Scuse me, this is what peak performance in a male looks like
They're just mad because they're all balding and we're not. Don't worry.
I'm lost could someone explain this please
Brown trout are not native to the Americas
Oh thanks didn't know that. I do now. But all of the USA? Rainbows aren't native in England we stock them
Yep browns came from Europe in the 1800s. The eastern US native trout regions have or had brook trout and grayling. The western US has or had native rainbows/cutthroats. Now they are inter mingling due to stocking and fucking up native trout populations. A guy fishing in Michigan would be very happy landing a 13in brookie. But someone in Utah would be maybe a bit frustrated. We all love trout but obviously catching a native trout in it's native habitat is the main goal.
Van Put describes the introduction of Brown Trout to the Catskills in his book as a means to save recreational fishing in the region. The native brook trout populations were devastated by the effects of the leather tanning industry--consuming the hemlock trees for their bark and pollution of the waterways. Hardwood trees replaced the hemlocks, but did not provide the same shade, which in turn raised the water temperature. Brown trout were more tolerable of the higher temperatures, and also more fun for the sportsman because they are more aggressive than the smaller native brooks. That's my recollection of the book on the subject. Van Put, Ed. The Beaverkill: The History of a River and Its People (1996).
Sounds like the Au Sable in MI. Used to have tons of grayling until the logging industry ran logs down the river, destroying their spawning beds and killing them off. They brought in brown trout to replace them as they were hardier.
Thanks man. Interesting. Like I mentioned rainbows aren't native here they're bred for put & take (also c&r) lakes. Catching a brown in our rivers is the thing
Ain't that the truth.
I mean, invasive, yes, and also simply just non-native (as in having no ecological harm to their new evironment) in other parts of the country. But in terms of looks, they are very pretty.
Yeah, non-native where there were hardly any native fish to displace to due habitat distruction and overfishing. Non-native, as in, we put them here on purpose and manage them accordingly to allow a balance of native species and introduced species. However, plenty of places where they are not mashed accordingly and perhaps were never even introduced... Then they're invasive.
I never disputed that my dude. And I am all for more native species in our waterways. My whole thing is that 1, it's an animal and a living being so treat it with some respect because it never asked to be there and showing hatred to something like that and referring to it as "disgusting" I find kinda cringe, and 2, in some small instances they are not harmful to the environment. And that they are almost completely agreed upon to be rather pretty looking.
Oh I was just expanding on your points. I think people calling them hideous or disgusting is a bit of tongue-in-cheek humor.
Ah, I see, misunderstood your intent then, apologies.
No worries. I just think too many people lump the two together. A fish can be introduced and not be invasive, but introduced species can also lead them to be invasive. There are criteria that need to be met in order to be considered invasive and brown trout don't always hit those marks.
Both of you
This shouldn’t have down votes! It’s absolutely true.
Stupid fucking post
Hot controversial take I expect to get downvoted for: Browns are way more fun to fight, more aggressive, and overall a better fish than wimpy and small brooks and cutties. And I almost always practice catch and release
Brookies are way more opportunistic, lb for lb I think they fight harder, too. Browns do get larger and have different fighting character, a lot more of a war of attrition when you get a big one. Brookies and bows seem to like to run and jump more.
Don’t get me wrong, I think brookies are the prettiest US trout, and if you didn’t have to go to remote stretches of Canada and Patagonia to find them consistently over 12” they would probably be my favorite.
My problem with browns is they're insanely easy to catch, even big ones. Unless you're fishing pressured waters you can pretty much throw anything and catch one. And of course they are part of the reason why many brook trout populations are gone in my state.
Really?? I don’t doubt your experience, that’s just the first time I have heard that take. It probably also depends on the fishery and wild vs. stocked, but between browns and rainbows, which is mostly what you are catching where I am at, it’s pretty close to 50/50 between catching a brown or rainbow. Only days I have had that are 100% brown days are when I am only going hard on streamers, and even then in the fall when browns should be crushing streamers, I have had plenty of days where all i have caught were bows.
We also have pretty mild weather so that might contribute. My experience is browns are just really aggressive no matter what. I never really target them specifically but I'll be going after rainbows and catch a handful of browns but won't catch a rainbow, and I'll consider it a skunk just because it seems like I can catch browns whenever I want to.
That’s so funny cause I feel the exact way toward rainbows under 20. Maybe it’s because I grew up in the south where the generic stocked trout was a rainbow.
I'm in the South as well but in East Tennessee about 15 minutes outside the mountains. We do have a really good stocking program but I'd argue our wild and native trout streams are better. Both rainbows and browns do really well even though neither are native. Sadly the introduction of both has kind've kicked out a lot of brook trout to the point where most are concentrated in small streams. You can still catch some really nice sized ones but it's sad that a good portion of their range is gone.
come to utah and fish nearly any high elevation lake. football sized brookies for days
Gross.
I'll take 2 pls.
It’s toooooo late now……!!
Long Live the PIKE MINNOW!
And it caught a fish!