Brook Trout population before things were destroyed.

That's true. Brookies and browns both, in general, the likelihood of trophies increases as the population density decreases.

Rather than straight population density, the correlation is probably more accurately described as biomass per available food. i.e. you get bigger fish when there are fewer fish eating more food.
 
In almost 40 years of chasing wild trout, I've caught exactly 3 natives that were 12" or larger. One 12", 12.5", and my biggest a 13.5". I've gotten many 10" and 11" natives. All of these bigger fish were measured.

The largest native I've ever SEEN was what I honestly believe to be a 16"-18" monster! This was on a NC freestone, in a big pool. I got a very good close-up look at this fish and it was no doubt a native. I'll never forget it! I'm fairly sure it died of old age. Just being where these trout live is a treat in itself!

 
misanthropist wrote:
I can't help but to wonder what it would have been like. obviously no one can say for sure and historical records are spotty.
I am curious to hear some opinions on this subject.
Click to expand...

Agree that the historical sources are very thin. As far as my opinion...it has always seemed to me that STs in PA before the logging era were probably not that far away from what they are now. That is to say, most of the population was probably in smaller streams and would have been in the 7-11" range. There were bigger fish undoubtedly, but I doubt lifespan was much longer back then and this has to be a growth limitation factor.

A frontiersman stomping into what we now know as Potter or Lycoming County in, lets say, circa 1750 would probably have found the native trout to be common but mostly small. Local Native American harvest of these fish was likely pretty significant and would have been for centuries. I'm not so sure that these trout populations were entirely pristine. My guess would be that the Indians were well aware of STs and their habits and would have speared or netted many of them.

To be sure, the 17th and 18th centuries saw a colder climate (the "Little Ice Age" if you subscribe to that characterization) and the heavy forest and forest floor duff certainly would have produced colder streams and there would indeed likely have been native trout in what we think of today as big freestoners like Pine Creek or Clarion River and some of these fish were probably in the mid to upper teens with an occasional fish over 18 inches or so.

Overall, however, my guess would be that most STs that that frontiersman would have encountered in the forest were probably still mostly under a foot in length. Notions of PA waters being filled with five pound STs in the old growth forest days are probably fantasy. There were undoubtedly bigger fish, but overall, not that much bigger. I think upstate NY and New England would have seen more larger STs back in that era.

Entirely speculation on my part. It's a fun topic to ponder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CRB
>>Entirely speculation on my part>>

Maybe it is "entirely speculation" But there's speculation and then there's speculation...

Your speculation is a lot more well thought out and logically presented than, well, quite a bit of the speculation one hears on this subject.

Or so I would speculate, at any rate...:)
 
FarmerDave wrote:
The biggest native brook trout I ever caught was in a stream that was class C or worse. It was one of those improving marginal AMD polluted streams.
Click to expand...

Same. This is my biggest "for sure" wild brook trout from a stream with low densities of fish because of water quality issues.

IMG_3848.jpg


IMG_3845.jpg



Over the summer a friend of mine caught a big brookie out of a different stream with very low numbers of fish. He didn't measure it, but it was an easy 12 incher. Wouldn't surprise me if it was 13........it was a truly amazing fish. Trout aren't stocked anywhere in the watershed, and it eventually dumps into a big warmwater river.

I say "for sure" for my fish above because I may have gotten a bigger one, but am unsure of its origins. Same situation as the fish pcray posted........few miles up an unstocked stream, and the stream it dumps into is only stocked with browns and rainbows, but has other tribs that receive brookies. In fact it may be the same watershed. If it was a hatchery fish, it was a clean looking one

Horrible photo, but this is the fish. Can't really get a grip on the size looking at the pic, but it was about the same size as the fish pcray posted.

P7080036.jpg
 
Sasquatch- I think the stream habitat probably plays into me not catching any on dries. I didn't mean to imply it doesn't happen.

The big brookies I have caught some from streams with plunge pools and large overhanging rocks, deep culvert holes, or plunge pools below log jams. These are places where fish hide under the cover and would never see a dry fly floating around. You need something to sink down to their level, that is also big enough to draw them out.

Catch them out feeding in the open, and yep they'll take dries, I just never found them in that situation.
 
I think good overhead cover, either slab rocks or logs and tree roots is the key, coupled with water chemistry that supports a solid food base. Number of fish in the stream can be anywhere on the spectrum, as long as you have those key habitat features and enough food. Some of my biggest brookies came from a freestone stream that also produced my most fish in one day ever (53). It has a small reservoir and some culvert holes.
 
"In over 50+ years of chasing Brookies in this state, I have only caught around a dozen 12" or larger and all were back in the day. anyone saying they catch fish in one stream and more than 2 fish over 12" is in my book full of it. Prove it to me."

So in your first statement you claim a dozen 12 " plus brookies, far more than anyone else on here, then go on to call everyone else full of crap, because they have offered no proof, when you haven't either. And if you caught that many, then obviously they existed at some point after the deforestation that allegedly wiped them out. I take you at your word, because I have no reason not to. I don't mean this as any kind of attack on you, it just seems that many on this forum are convinced everyone they don't know personally is a liar until proven truthful, and I don't think there is any amount of proof that could be offered to change minds, aside from being there in person when the fish was caught. Forget the fish, Cornholio throws out the accusation that people only hike half the distance they say, but claims a 10 mile hike is a cake walk to him. I believe him too by the way. As for multiple 12+ brookies out of the same stream....if the conditions are good enough to produce one fish of that size, why couldn't it produce a second? Another thing to keep in mind is that brook trout of that size are probably meat eaters like large browns and would likely need to be targeted and fished for accordingly. I don't think many guys are targeting fish they don't believe exist. A spot like this would obviously be rare, if it does exist, and as I said before, the only proof I think many of you would accept is being there in person, and you can rest assured that anyone who has found such a place isn't taking anybody there.
 
Omg this thread :lol:
 
pcray1231 wrote:
That's true. Brookies and browns both, in general, the likelihood of trophies increases as the population density decreases.

Rather than straight population density, the correlation is probably more accurately described as biomass per available food. i.e. you get bigger fish when there are fewer fish eating more food.
Click to expand...

Yea, I think that is the thought I was trying to convey.

Oh wait. I forgot. There are no fish there. Nothing to see.;-)





 
Corn and squatch, I do agree. It's unlikely. I have caught hundreds of brookies and haven't had a true 12"+ other than the one I mentioned that I can't promise is wild. Fishing the right streams, your odds definitely go up, but idk how high.

Sarce, I can't wait to see! that is awesome you got into one of the big ones down there. I have fished the stream once only, and saw some big fish, but only had a few little guys sipping at dries and swing at nymphs, but wouldn't take. bad conditions that day and that stream is TOUGH. congrats.


farmer dave, I agree. I have caught my two biggest browns, and one of my top brookies on a section of stream that isn't even classified for wild trout. All the same stream as well, as funny as that is. There is definitely a good shot at that. Some big streams just make bigger (on average) fish, but doesn't mean that has to be where the toad is. just takes one big hole and good conditions and food for enough consecutive years, plus a little luck, to get a big one.


Fish idiot, I think you are of course right. It's much like the state of large browns now. They get huge, but most streams you fish are just gona have 10-14" fish in them, with the very occasional fish over that, and more really large fish on a few big waters. Scale that down by 40% and you have brook trout.




 
I bet Kitchen Creek has multiple brookies over 12 inches.
 
I bet that's where my sandwich is too but prob soggy by now!
All the big brookies hang out in the UNT's duh!-talking the 20"+ ones
 
This is the best brook trout I ever got. SE PA, little valley creek. Limestone though so it doesn't count.

big-brook-trout.jpg

 
Early spawner. There are still leaves on the trees...
 
Sarce-I didn't take your statement to mean it doesn't happen at all (catching larger ones on the dry). I was just pointing out that my experience was different.

 
Moon, if you want to be an internet renowned big brookie angler like the rest of us you'll need to get that limestone trash outta here

:p

 
Look through the photos and just look at the pectoral fins.

I think that the brook trout with the opaque, milky looking pectoral fins are hatchery trout, and that that trumps anything regarding location, because hatchery trout can show up anywhere.

But I'd be interested to hear what Mike says about this. Are the milky, opaque fins sure indicators that they are hatchery trout? Or do wild trout sometimes have those too?

I've caught a few wild brookies around 11 and 12 inches, and their fins were transparent, just like wild brookies of 6 inches.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top