Fishing in fall and winter (with as little impact on spawning as possible)

[rustbeltwilds]

Yep I agree 100 pct with brown 71

 

[moodyblues]

Darn right, that's why a smoke and a nap are usually in order shortly afterwards.

Smoking ain't good for ya. Just take that time to go another round while ya still can.

 

[Nocktavius]

This is what ya want for steelhead. The more worn they are, the easier they come in. I'm especially happy when I can just hand-line them in and get them up quickly for that good ol' Instagram photo so that I may validate my existence.

Exactly. Fish that are actively spawning (on a redd, in the act) aren't generally going to eat unless you're harassing them with streamers, and they hit out of aggression/defense. It's gonna be pretty hard to get a spawning trout to eat.

The only caveat might be that spawning is exhausting, and I suppose there could be a greater risk to the fish if it's caught directly after spawning, is already worn out/unhealthy, and is then fought/played for too long or held out of water for too long.

If a fish is exhausted it’s probably kinda weak. If you catch it it’s probably kinda dumb.

In the spirit of classical hunting, it’s not the worst thing to remove a few of these from our rivers so the average fish size goes up up up

 

[The Rodfather]

I don't know why anybody fishes the winter cold when you can just wait until spring and catch all of the fresh browns. They are the sport fish of PA after all.

 

[coyoterahn]

I don't know why anybody fishes the winter cold when you can just wait until spring and catch all of the fresh browns. They are the sport fish of PA after all.

Those browns after all are an in… in….incredible fish species. Fun to fish for all year.

 

[Kyle]

I don't know why anybody fishes the winter cold when you can just wait until spring and catch all of the fresh browns. They are the sport fish of PA after all.

i value winter fishing. almost no others fishing. i like the cold. i like the snow. i have the river to myself. and i can nympth a run for hours without a flinch. my feet dont get cold.

 

[jifigz]

I always liked winter fishing, too. I do less of it now as I hunt more and more each year in the winter and fish less and less.

 

[Kyle]

I always liked winter fishing, too. I do less of it now as I hunt more and more each year in the winter and fish less and less.

i use to do alot of hunting until i lost two private properties. i do still take my brittany pheasant hunting though.

 

[tomgamber]

Used to winter fish a lot out west cuz the sun was always out. I was also under 30. Did it back here a little but I'd do it more if I didn't have to drive so far to make freezing my @$$ off worthwhile.

 

[redietz]

To Fish or Not to Fish

 

[hooker-of-men]

I fish all year round, for both trout and whoever else wants to party (though February does get pretty dismal where I live). I am more selective during the fall and winter spawning window, certainly.

Unfortunately, I guess these days I have to preempt this with I AM NOT TRYING TO ATTACK OR ARGUE WITH ANYONE; however, I disagree with some comments above, and I think the messaging to leave spawning trout and redds alone is important. I think we should be pretty amazed and appreciative of anywhere fish of any species still reproduce given our history of taking care of our waters.

I'd much rather be overly cautious, even if some see that as naive. I can live with a couple months of more careful fishing. It's not the end of the world.

Again, I don't want to be combative or really care to change anyone's minds if they have their stance, but I think this is important to state for newer anglers.

 

[afishinado]

".......I can live with a couple months of more careful fishing. It's not the end of the world........"

Yes.....

 

[Silent Ocelot]

I fish all year round, for both trout and whoever else wants to party (though February does get pretty dismal where I live). I am more selective during the fall and winter spawning window, certainly.

Unfortunately, I guess these days I have to preempt this with I AM NOT TRYING TO ATTACK OR ARGUE WITH ANYONE; however, I disagree with some comments above, and I think the messaging to leave spawning trout and redds alone is important. I think we should be pretty amazed and appreciative of anywhere fish of any species still reproduce given our history of taking care of our waters.

I'd much rather be overly cautious, even if some see that as naive. I can live with a couple months of more careful fishing. It's not the end of the world.

Again, I don't want to be combative or really care to change anyone's minds if they have their stance, but I think this is important to state for newer anglers.

Well said

 

[mgmunson]

I think the people rolling their eyes saying "not this sh*t again" are the ones high-jacking the thread. It was a specific question about disturbing the spawn (ie. interest in conserving the natural order). There can't be a discussion about conservation without addressing the native v. invasive issue. As redundant as it can seem, it's an important issue that you won't read about on fishandboat.com.

I think people get so offended because the reality challenges their historical viewpoint. Fishing in PA is a cultural/social phenomenon. Most people were introduced to it through their families at a young age. Lining up at dawn on opening day with the goal of catching their limit. Many moved on to fly-fishing because, perhaps, they feel more connected to nature and the behavior of the fish (match the hatch, figuring out feeding habits, c&r, working on presentation, tying flies, etc.). Many/most consider themselves outdoors people with an interest in conservation. But when it's pointed out that conservation is protecting the natural order, it's hard for them to recognize the damage that their closely held love of catching stocked and invasive fish has done to environments and ecosystems.

Now, I think there's room for both. Go catch your trophy rainbows and browns. It's fun. Exhilarating. There, we've acknowledged that. Now please acknowledge that catching native fish in their natural habitat is also fun and exhilarating, and makes us feel connected to our environment. Many of these native streams are hard to get to, hard to fish, don't have public access, AND are facing the effects of managing watersheds for maximum fishing license revenue. If you don't like the facts that the gemmie heads are presenting, move on. Go find a thread on fly-tying, or stream conditions, or gear reviews. But to diminish the point that Brook Trout face an uphill battle is just sowing division amongst a group that should be unified in the name of protecting our outdoor spaces.

Now for OPs question; as long as you're aware of your impact and do your best to mitigate it (don't tramp through the gravel), then go out and have fun! That's really what it's all about

 

[Silent Ocelot]

Many of these native streams are hard to get to, hard to fish, don't have public access

...but the native trout are relatively easy to catch... which is what I like. I think the next time Salmo and I hit the water I'm gonna hop over the picky and and easily spooked browns to get to the easy to catch brookies that will take whatever stupid dry fly I tie on.

 

[dudemanspecial]

But when it's pointed out that conservation is protecting the natural order

Here is where my disconnect from your type occurs.

YOUR version of conservation is protecting "native" brook trout at all costs, and any other natural resource that exists based off of your definition of "native" is just a shiny object for what you consider the less informed public to be entertained with.

There is no definition of the word conservation that I have seen that makes the word ONLY apply to the "native" narrative. Of course it does apply to the native habitat here. But it also applies to ALL of our natural resources in this state. Like it or not, there are natural resources in our state that are not "native".

I am 100% pro brook trout conservation. Stop stocking over them - absolutely. Stop stocking nearby water where they can get into their habitat- absolutely.

Working to protect wild brown trout habitat is conservation. The "Invase Species Hater Society"'s arrogance when they discuss what their version of conservation is, and telling other people how and what to think and why they are wrong OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN are why these threads get hijacked.

 

[Silent Ocelot]

Technically, mgmunson is correct here. It is your own disassociation between what is beneficial for the environment and what is beneficial for fishing.

Unfortunately humans are creatures of ulterior motives concerned with self-preservation of our own wants so we "modify" the environment to fit our needs, even if those modifications have a negative impact on the environment.

For instance, repairing a stream and making it viable for living creatures is a good thing. Stocking it with fish is good for the stocked fish in of themselves but will have a negative impact on fish species that typically inhabit the watershed. Why is it so important to introduce species that otherwise would not exist in that watershed? Well, to provide a fishing opportunity. Why are artificially introduced species given more conservation measures than preexisting naturally occurring species? Because we as humans derive a greater benefit from the artificial species, given them higher value. One could label themselves a conservationist for one particular species, but this often goes against the idea of true conservatism and is ultimately a pointless thing to do if someone truly cares about the order of nature.

We have gone through a century of stocking indoctrination so thinking outside of those confines is difficult, however if you view things from purely a conversation standpoint, which means caring for species that have existed in said area a natural way, then the answer is obvious. It's difficult to think the way of a true conservationist. I don't inherently hate any species, but when said species is harmful to an ecosystem than it is a bad thing and the introduction of said species needs to end. I don't think measures to eradicate said invasive species should take place, as with brown trout in particular, that would be impossible, but the introduction of said species should cease.

I didn't start this debate on here but feel my comment is necessary and I feel as though I didn't get too abrasive or was disrespectful. Just providing facts.

 

[dudemanspecial]

Technically, mgmunson is correct here. It is your own disassociation between what is beneficial for the environment and what is beneficial for fishing.

Unfortunately humans are creatures of ulterior motives concerned with self-preservation of our own wants so we "modify" the environment to fit our needs, even if those modifications have a negative impact on the environment.

For instance, repairing a stream and making it viable for living creatures is a good thing. Stocking it with fish is good for the stocked fish in of themselves but will have a negative impact on fish species that typically inhabit the watershed. Why is it so important to introduce species that otherwise would not exist in that watershed? Well, to provide a fishing opportunity. Why are artificially introduced species given more conservation measures than preexisting naturally occurring species? Because we as humans derive a greater benefit from the artificial species, given them higher value.

We have gone through a century of stocking indoctrination so thinking outside of those confines is difficult, however if you view things from purely a conversation standpoint, which means caring for species that have existed in said area a natural way, then the answer is obvious. It's difficult to think the way of a true conservationist. I don't inherently hate any species, but when said species is harmful to an ecosystem than it is a bad thing and the introduction of said species needs to end. I don't think measures to eradicate said invasive species should take place, as with brown trout in particular, that would be impossible, but the introduction of said species should cease.

I didn't start this debate on here but feel my comment is necessary and I feel as though I didn't get too abrasive or was disrespectful. Just providing facts.

I agree with your premise here, but there is a certain level of reality about it all that you don't seem to grasp.

 

[Silent Ocelot]

Explain the reality. I feel as though (for once) my previous post was well thought out and pretty air-tight.

Ultimately, if every non-native species disappeared tomorrow I would only be saddened by not being able to fish for said species but not sad the species is gone as I am able to understand said species simply didn't belong.

The idea of these conservationists was to educate the public in the hopes that they will to try to push for a change by contacting certain politicians in writings/phone calls. I realize that nothing will change and will continue its downward spiral into oblivion.

 

[dudemanspecial]

Explain the reality. I feel as though (for once) my previous post was well thought out and pretty air-tight.

Ultimately, if every non-native species disappeared tomorrow I would only be saddened by not being able to fish for said species but not sad the species is gone as I am able to understand said species simply didn't belong.

Your post was fine. I literally said that I agree with your premise.The reality is explained very clearly in my post that you responded to.

Do you even read the arguments presented or do you just type out a canned response when you see the word native?