Niche fly fishing, anyone else?

[evw659]

Niche for me this year has been river fishing with sinking lines from a jet boat for smallmouth and musky. Having a lot of fun experimenting with it and finally netted my first musky on the fly rod a couple weeks ago. Ive found pursuing musky on the fly to be very taxing and at times unenjoyable but to me it is so much more engaging than fishing with conventional gear for them, which ive done a lot of. Not sure what the average might be for most people, but it probably took 80-100 hours of fishing time with the 10 wt to finally net one.

 

[troutbert]

flyguyfishing wrote:

troutbert wrote:

flyguyfishing wrote:

troutbert wrote:
What places have you found in PA with a trout stream flowing through old growth forest?

I am very interested in that "niche". And I'd also be interested in exploring such areas in other eastern states.

Hmm..the two links I shared cover most of the old growth areas in PA. Combine those with PA's trout maps. Most old growth forests are in (somewhat) protected lands - public access. State Parks, State Forests, or State Natural Area. Many have steep ravines (not worth it to loggers back in the day) with a stream at the bottom.

I'm thinking in terms of stream sections flowing through old growth (never logged) forest.

If you know of such places, please let me know, by PM if you'd rather not post them on the forum.

My interest in these places has to do with the physical aspects of streams and floodplains more than catching trout.

From what I can tell, such places are extremely rare in PA.

There are streams near old growth areas, but rarely flowing through them.

I am an amateur. My new obsession with old growth forests has led to research. Forest forensics is interesting to me.

Since fishing is not your main motivation, Detweiler Run Natural Area is certainly old growth with Detweiler Run running directly through the old growth.

Here is a another link about the area ….
http://www.nativetreesociety.org/fieldtrips/us_east/penna/detweiler_run.htm

This was written by…
Dave Orwig. (I do not know him)
https://www.linkedin.com/in/dave-orwig-31a64041

He earned PhD from Penn State and is now at Harvard. Read his bio.

If these forests were not logged in the 1800s, when would they have been logged?? This is central PA, not many lived there prior 1800.

I mention this old growth because the stream has thick rhododendron - I did not fish it. As the article states, it is rocky and steep. It was fun exploring, but not good for fishing.

A short distance away is Alan Seagar natural area. Again, it is Old growth. One or two small streams flow through the old growth. Standing Stone creek goes through a small patch of old growth. It is listed as stocked, then upstream as natural reproduction. I would agree it is not worthy of class A or B.

Most of the listed areas I have been to seem old growth. There is research online. For example the Seneca section of Cook’s Forest has never been logged but evidence of forest fire in (I think ) 1640. Does a forest fire dating to 1640 make it not virgin growth?? The Seneca area is steep and overlooks the Clarion, but does not have a stream. …so I mention it here


IMO, the exceptions to the lists on the links are (that I have explored):


Ferncliff Peninsula Natural Area - Ohiopyle State Park, seemed to be more really old second growth, but I am not an expert. There is no stream there. Yough runs next to it - around the peninsula.

Carpenter's Woods - Wissahickon Valley Park was urban and had no stream. It seemed more like old second growth.

I agree old growth is rare. I enjoy exploring for a hobby. I especially love it when there is a stream to fly fish. I do think they exist in PA. I believe the are listed in those links.

Researching Orwig’s work might help you find other old growth area with streams on the east coast. Maybe contact him for expert ideas? If his research is an indicator, he loves old growth.

Good luck!

Good stuff, thanks.

I've been to Detwiler Run and Alan Seeger, and yes I agree those are examples of where streams flow through old growth forest.

I've been to the Hemlocks Natural Area in Perry County that someone mentioned, and I agree that's another example.

 

[EcoDog]

dryflyguy wrote:

flyguyfishing wrote:
dryflyguy,

I think I remember you on the old FFP board. Have you ever used anything other than a dryfly?

I have strong preference towards dries as well. I rarely use anything but dries on Brooke streams.

Yes, I posted on the FFP forum.

I would say I fish dry flies 99% of the time.
But I do carry a few "junk" flies.
And occasionally, when I absolutely can't get a rise to anything, will grudgingly put one on.
Usually only in low clear water, when I can see the fish.

When I can follow the fly, and watch for a take - it's still rather interesting to my short attention span.
But not for long!

I'm with you on dry flies. The rush of seeing your dry get sucked under makes it all worthwhile. I carry plenty of nymphs, but gravitate to my dries 99% of the time...

 

[EcoDog]

.

 

[Acristickid]

Fishing for all of the native trout and salmon in the United States.

 

[flyguyfishing]

I was hoping/thinking someone might have really gotten into night fishing. Anyone? Results? Anyone use color night vision?

 

[Canoetripper]

To answer the above question, I have done plenty of night fishing on canoe/camping trips, but this has always been with spinning tackle in a "Y" stick.

Upon reaching the camping site, I always set up the minnow trap first. Then, I dealt with the tent and fire wood.

I loved sitting there at the river waiting for a bigger fish to find a minnow. You never know what you are going to catch. I caught more channel catfish than anything else, and they don't care if the minnow is dead or alive.

I have night vision optics that I bought from the Sharper Image catalogue but I haven't used them yet.

I have never fly fished at night.

 

[maxima12]

ECODOG----CAN I TIE SOME FLIES FOR YOU. A MAN WITH THAT MANY, ALWAYS NEEDS MORE. THEN A LITTLE MORE, A WHOLE SELECTION OF MATCHING LEADERS FOR EVERY DETAIL.

DREAMS I'LL NEVER SEE-------MOLLY HATCHET!

MAXIMA12

 

[EcoDog]

flyguyfishing wrote:
I was hoping/thinking someone might have really gotten into night fishing. Anyone? Results? Anyone use color night vision?

A few years ago, we used to camp and fish at a ranch that had a cold clear stream feeding some ponds. They held some amazing 'bows and after a hard day of fishing, we'd eat dinner, light the campfire and head out in our float tubes to drag Wooley Buggers in the dark. It was a bit creepy, but when you got a tug on your line it shocked the jeebers out of you. It seemed only the larger trout would hit, and they hit hard. I think is it a lateral line thing as the fish likely couldn't see the Bugger. Lot's of adrenaline flowing the the dark. Sadly, haven't done that in a long while...

 

[WildTigerTrout]

flyguyfishing wrote:

WildTigerTrout wrote:
My niche fishing is fishing for trout during the trico hatch on a slow moving limestone stream. IMO nothing like landing a decent trout on a 2 or 3 weight fly rod with 6 or 7x tippet and a size 24-26 dry fly!

A close second is fishing terrestrials(ants, beetles, inchworms, grasshoppers etc.) during the summer.

Good one. You must enjoy frustration. trico fishing can be tough...seems to be a rhythm the fish feed.

I enjoy the challenge. Gave up on the numbers game awhile ago. I like matching wits with the hard and difficult ones.

 

[EcoDog]

maxima12 wrote:
ECODOG----CAN I TIE SOME FLIES FOR YOU. A MAN WITH THAT MANY, ALWAYS NEEDS MORE. THEN A LITTLE MORE, A WHOLE SELECTION OF MATCHING LEADERS FOR EVERY DETAIL.

DREAMS I'LL NEVER SEE-------MOLLY HATCHET!

MAXIMA12

Thanks for the offer, but I need to drag out the stream specific boxes of flies still packed up from the move and the boxes of tying paraphernalia before thinking about adding to the collection.

BTW, you're kinda dating yourself with the Molly Hatchet reference...

 

[Fredrick]

I thought I was part of a small but fast growing niche . After reading some of the posts some of you are in an extremely small niche or even having one almost to yourself . int:

I'm sure most of you know my niche if not here you go, beware its extremely addictive .

https://www.stripersonline.com/surftalk/uploads/monthly_2019_08/17B69B23-BCC3-42FA-8C84-13DDA270170F.jpeg.4c46c1c46be69545242b8c79b1cb778d.jpeg

 

[JeffK]

I've fly fishing for 55 years, so I try all sorts of new things to keep the sport fresh. Some old techniques at familiar spots still are pleasant and remind me of compatriots who are no longer with us, but still need to keep trying new things. Plus, the more tricks you have up your sleeve the more likely you are able to catch a few on those tough days.

Things I tried were short rods, long rods, native trout, large trout, limestone streams, and tailwaters. Have had streamer years and years when I used mainly snowshoe rabbit dry flies. Also a few classic wet fly years with antique 10' to 11' calcutta cane rods. Had a period where I fished mostly Ed Shenk flies (love their simplicity and effectiveness) . Now I am more into fishing tiny midges - which I gave up a decade ago but circled back to because they work so well on the Lehigh Valley limestoners. The results of decades of this are a huge collection of rods and tying materials - but learned a lot and can usually switch up techniques to catch a few.

Friends I fish with also affect my niches. A big reason I fish more midges is that I fish the Little Lehigh more with my one friend. The past midge cycle coincided with a period when I fished every Sunday afternoon in the winter with a friend. Years my friends fished the Catskills which prompted the classic dry or wet fly period. my streamer period grew out of great success with a Shenk's white minnow which lead me down a streamer rabbit hole.

On the sadder side, I am dry fly fishing less because on my local streams the hatches don't seem to be what they used to be so I am forced to try new things.

 

[Tigereye]

Not so much now. For a while a few years back I spent 2 springs fishing winged wet flies only, using original recipes and natural materials as listed in Bergman's trout. I used my deceased uncles cane rod, catgut line and what I believe is a Heddon reel ca.1950. 1 fish per fly. I got thru alot of them. Fun and nostalgic but, our equipment is light years from that Era. Was kinda fun to do it though.

I even fished an earthworm on that rod a few times, the way my uncle did back then. ( sorry mods, please don't ban me!!!!) THAT for sure is a deadly technique

 

[Tuz]

I go through niches quite regularly. I successfully caught trout on the yellow breeches on a dry every month for a year! Try and keep me posted.

 

[silverfox]

There's an old-growth hemlock stand with a native brook trout stream flowing through it near me. It's the first native brook trout stream I ever fished. The terrain in that drainage is far too steep and boulder strewn to ever log it. Down in the bottom where it levels out it was logged, but up in the "canyon" it's all virgin hemlock. One of my favorite places.

My niche is fishing obscure places. I basically use all the mapping and biomass resources out there for the opposite purpose. Find water that isn't supposed to have trout. Then time my outings to when they should be either holding there or moving through. It's fun for me because you're looking for a lack of data rather than a plethora of data.

 

[sarce]

That's a great way to find TRULY unpressured trout water, SF. I've had pretty good success doing that here in MD. it's led me to 3 previously undocumented brook trout streams and 2 undocumented brown trout streams. All within 30-40 minutes of Baltimore.

Another thing is following up on reports that were 12-15+ years old. In a few cases I found excellent fishing in streams that had been described as "marginal" 15 years ago. You'd think with the more dense population down here that there are no more secrets left but that's far from being the case.

I am almost bummed when I find a recent report on an obscure stream because it takes away the mystery.

 

[dryflyguy]

sarce and silverfox:

That's REAL niche fishing there for sure.
And I commend you for that.
Just wondering though - how often do you strike out by doing things the hard way

 

[sarce]

A whole lot of striking out - so I usually line up multiple streams to check out per day.

If a stream has no data at all, which is fairly uncommon here in MD, I'll find trout about 10-15% of the time. I don't usually spend a whole day on such streams unless I've set aside time to stop by a favorite nearby spot.

If a stream has outdated data (15+ years old), typically I'm about 60% successful at finding trout in those. It's not really a discovery though, just a confirmation of old info.

If a stream has data more recent than 15 years, even then I still occasionally strike out because development is continuing to extirpate brook trout streams.

 

[troutbert]

dryflyguy wrote:
sarce and silverfox:

That's REAL niche fishing there for sure.
And I commend you for that.
Just wondering though - how often do you strike out by doing things the hard way

I also love the exploring type of fishing. It's the most interesting type of fishing for me.

Finding wild trout in streams that are not on the wild trout list, streams that most people think are too warm, too polluted etc. is really fun. It's kind of like being Lewis and Clark but here in modern times, and right here in PA.

I have done this type of exploring and found no trout on numerous occasions. But I don't care, because you're still exploring, and you learn things either way.

You get a better understanding of where trout live and where they don't, and hopefully learn things about why.

In the 1980s and 1990s I found trout in many stream sections that were not on the wild trout list, including some large streams, canoeable streams.

But they've done a LOT of surveying since then, so the wild trout list is much longer now. They still keep finding new ones, but most of them are very small streams.

But it's also fun to explore streams that are on the list, but are rated as having low populations, like Class C and D.

Because sometimes the streams overall have poor physical habitat, or where they surveyed has poor habitat, but you find some sections that are very good.