# Dumb Trout in F-O?



## Shupac

In the recent flies only thread, and in several I've read in the past, I've heard people say that the flies only sections are like fishing in a farm pond, with trout too dumb to make it a challenge. Having fished these waters quite a bit, I found that statement curious. There are times on the upper au sable branches when you can catch smaller trout on about every third cast, though these days aren't common. I can have steady action for fair size trout (lets say 4-5 12-16" fish an hour, with an occasional bigger one) more often there than on general regs streams. But it does happen on general regs streams too. There are those times though, usually later in the season, when I can't buy a hit despite my best efforts. And on some of those days, I've shifted operations to a general regs stream and cleaned house, or at least had a respectable day. The few times I've caught 30 or better legal trout in a day came in general regs. And I've found that in general regs streams there's a broader margin for error in fly pattern/size choice. I can think of only twice in my years of fly fishing I couldn't get dialed in on the hatch on general regs streams, but it happens at least once a season on the fly waters. 

Some of you here sound like much better fishermen than I am, so maybe this just reflects my deficiencies. But I know some better fishermen than me who have the same experiences. And I'm talking about fly fishing; maybe you always score more with spin tackle, but that's not what I remember. 

I'm almost afraid to ask this for fear my worst doubts about my fishing skills will be confirmed, but I don' think they're that bad. So I ask...why do the fly water trout seem so dumb?


----------



## Flyfisher

Shupac said:


> So I ask...why do the fly water trout seem so dumb?


Not all of them are, just the ones that eagerly take. On general reg streams, the dumb ones bite first and often get taken out of the gene "pool" (pun intended) by anglers. On "No Kill" waters, the dumb fish are never culled. I haven't experienced this first hand, just providing further explanation. 

The lack of conditioning to "real food" (ie bugs) on stocked general reg water trout could explain the lack of pattern selectivity.

I have experienced that on some heavily fished waters, a fair number of trout become extremely selective and line/leader shy. No so much in Michigan but on a few rivers out east that see tremendous fishing pressure all summer long.


----------



## gunrod

I've always taken it to mean that if I caught it on a fly it must be dumb. Kind of makes sense. We don't catch the smart ones because they don't eat flies and only eat 'real bugs'.


----------



## Shupac

Flyfisher said:


> Not all of them are, just the ones that eagerly take. On general reg streams, the dumb ones bite first and often get taken out of the gene "pool" (pun intended) by anglers. On "No Kill" waters, the dumb fish are never culled. I haven't experienced this first hand, just providing further explanation.
> 
> The lack of conditioning to "real food" (ie bugs) on stocked general reg water trout could explain the lack of pattern selectivity.
> 
> I have experienced that on some heavily fished waters, a fair number of trout become extremely selective and line/leader shy. No so much in Michigan but on a few rivers out east that see tremendous fishing pressure all summer long.


This is what I've assumed. After some of those dumb trout in F-0 streams get caught and released a few times they can get pretty smart. And since they get lots of bugs thrown at them, they become discriminating. There may well be some dumb trout that get the priveledge of staying that way in C&R water, but they rub fins with some very wise old ones.


----------



## Jackster1

Darn! I guess all of those high mountain, Appalachian brookies that come up out of 5 deep', crystal clear holes to nail a dry fly are the dumb ones of the gene pool... even though the odds are they have never before been bothered by a human much less a dry fly.
Same too for those idiot fish in Alaska that roam hundreds of miles of pristine waters and fall to the fly.


----------



## Shupac

Jackster1 said:


> Darn! I guess all of those high mountain, Appalachian brookies that come up out of 5 deep', crystal clear holes to nail a dry fly are the dumb ones of the gene pool... even though the odds are they have never before been bothered by a human much less a dry fly.
> Some too for those idiot fish in Alaska that roam hundreds of miles of pristine waters and fall to the fly.


I don't know how meaningful the words smart or dumb are applied to fish. Fish in different situations bring different challenges. Fish that aren't bothered much will take a fly more easily, but I find they require a stealthier approach. One false step approaching a trickle in the UP and the brookies bolt. Sometimes in the holy water fish will rise a rod's length away and don't get especially concerened if you move a step in their direction. They may ignore your fly, but they don't run.


----------



## Flyfisher

Jackster1 said:


> Darn! I guess all of those high mountain, Appalachian brookies that come up out of 5 deep', crystal clear holes to nail a dry fly are the dumb ones of the gene pool... even though the odds are they have never before been bothered by a human much less a dry fly.


Sarcasm aside, I don't believe those fish are as dumb as they are probably just really hungry , given the scarcity of food in some of those mountain freestones.

I believe most trout are curious creatures prone to conditioning so while they may feel the sting of the hook several times in "no kill" waters, they will eventually wise up, or at least the vast majority of them will. Its the odd "dumb" fish that grows big under the protection of "no kill" regulations that I believe someone was pointing out. I recall many years ago catching a very nice brown (a "money" fish if caught by a client being guided) quite easily on a #16 dry sulfur while floating the Holy Waters. One of the Gate's Lodge guides was passing by as I was releasing it and said that they had caught that fish a number of times that summer already. For every dumb fish, I am confident there are many, many more well educated fish. The point being is that in waters that allow the capture of fish, chances are good this "dumb" fish would have probably been removed at some point, leaving only the smarter, conditioned fish.

I find this an interesting topic and don't necessarily subscribe entirely to it as it was originally presented. I merely was trying to clarify what I believe the original point was on the other thread.


----------



## Bull Market

It sounds to me like you guys have it sorted out the way I see it. I didn't feel the need to comment in the other thread, because they were getting desperate trying to justify their position, and were groping at straws. 

IMO Those individuals that are caught are probably hungry, territorial or naturally aggressive. The fact that they get caught (and hopefully returned to the river) means that they are also (hopefully) SMARTER not dumber, as some people would have you believe. IMO

But, of course, until someone puts "micro chips" into a whole bunch of fish, and monitors whenever they are caught, released, and caught again . . . and the frequency of that happening, etc. Well, it's all just SPECULATION, no matter what side of the theory you take. 

Fun to talk about, but don't let anyone convince you that C&R fish are dumb. The logic doesn't hold water (so to speak).


----------



## Shupac

I remember one season when I caught a notably deformed 10" rainbow (its face looked too small for the rest of its head) in the same spot in june, july, and september. I caught him on a dry, a nymph, and a streamer, respectively. The stream was more or less put and take and is mostly fished with bait. Given that, it's a wonder he lasted through the season. Was he too smart to take a worm? (Or did someone catch him and not like the look of his head? I wouldn't have had a problem keeping him, if I was so inclined, and sometimes I did keep fish from that creek.)

There are a lot of variables to how catchable a given fish is, or how catchable fish in a given stream are; living in CR waters doesn't overshadow the rest.


----------



## TC-fisherman

Shupac said:


> There are a lot of variables to how catchable a given fish is, or how catchable fish in a given stream are; living in CR waters doesn't overshadow the rest.


Thats true.

There are some who have been posting for years "fish in FO only water are easy or dumb" coincidentally at the same time time they criticize FO water and anyone who fishes it. They have about zero credibility

I caught a 20+" brown mid day right next to an access point on the Boardman in August. Another fisherman who was getting back in his car heard the splashing, couldn't believe it was fish, came back to check it out. We both laughed in disbelief. 

I could tell this anecdote as proof that fish in gen reg water are stupid and easy to catch. But it doesn't prove anything. 

Angling pressure effects fish. Those "dumb easy fish" learn. 

http://afsjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1577/M06-035.1


The hardest trout to catch is one that isn't there because someone took it home.


----------



## Ranger Ray

Just be careful not to confuse dumb fishermen with dumb fish. Two separate issues that can occur on the same body of water.


----------



## WILDCATWICK

There are "easier" fish than others though out a whole system where trout habitat is suitable. The comments and wording of "stupider" trout in F.O. water to me is either just a comment without thought or it's an attempt to try to ruffle feathers. Either way unnecessary IMO. Heck there is no scientific data for it and the people that are bringing it up require science only to make judgments.

The majority of my 20"+ fish have been caught out of regulated water. By some peoples logic here that must mean that the stupid fish all hang out in non regulated water. Every trout expert that has given advice on how or where to catch trophy trout has written or stated to concentrate your efforts in the lower water shed of trout streams. I find the experts advice odd if all the big stupid fish live in F.O. waters. Don't the experts know that F.O. waters are not in the lower stretches of streams?

Heck, the studies show that between 80% and 90% of the catches are voluntary released. Note 80% to 90% not the 90% that has been thrown around here. http://www.michigandnr.com/PUBLICATIONS/PDFS/ifr/ifrlibra/Research/abstracts/1987abs.htm If that many are being released then I'm sure there are stupid fish everywhere. I'm just looking for some constancy.

So it seems to me that the majority of fish are being released in both regulated and unregulated. One would have to take in to factor that fish no no boundaries and frequently migrate annually and even daily. Here is a good study that breaks it down and what factors effect it. http://www.michigandnr.com/PUBLICATIONS/PDFS/ifr/ifrlibra/Research/abstracts/1998abs.htm

There are so many factors it's kind of amazing. Throw in that fish certainly may become more discriminant and tougher to catch the more they get caught but they still have to eat...and this holds true for any regulated or non regulated water.

The comment and theory of stupid fish in FO waters.....well it is what it is.

I find it about as comparable as saying that fishing with a worm is harder or more challenging. Let's do this, I'll fish a worm and you fish a nymph for 7 days straight and change beats every day and see what method catches more. Granted it's easier to fish the fly during some hatches. But most of us know that fish feed on the surface less than 10% of the time. Which should mean that fishing is easier with a worm 90% of the time. A fisherman's ability will help them land more fish with what ever method used but adding scent &/or sound to the equation when fishing subsurface will certainly get more trouts attention than a piece of thread.....to think otherwise is really odd don't you think?


----------



## Shoeman

I believe the term stupid fish was coined by Splitshot trying to negate releasing fish and repeatedly catching them.

While I agree with Ray to some extent, larger fish are a prize to anyone, even if caught 5 or 6 times before someone decides it should end up in a smoker

I firmly believe that nit-picking will only divide us and we need to keep a close eye on those that want to limit opportunities. 

Slots would cure this, but some efforts are geared to C&R for many prime waters


----------



## Ranger Ray

WILDCATWICK said:


> Heck, the studies show that between 80% and 90% of the catches are voluntary released. Note 80% to 90% not the 90% that has been thrown around here. http://www.michigandnr.com/PUBLICATI...ts/1987abs.htm If that many are being released then I'm sure there are stupid fish everywhere. I'm just looking for some constancy.



That 80% figure was from like the 90's. Pretty good back then. There are studies showing we are reaching and exceeding 90%, so the earlier statement was correct.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## WILDCATWICK

Ranger Ray said:


> That 80% figure was from like the 90's. Pretty good back then. Ther are studies showing we are reachin and exceeding 90%. 4o the earlier statement was correct.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


_Posted via Mobile Device_

Could be but I've not see a more recent study on voluntary release on trout. Do you have a link to a newer study?

Thanks,
Wildcat


----------



## gunrod

gunrod said:


> I've always taken it to mean that if *I* caught it on a fly it must be dumb. Kind of makes sense. We don't catch the smart ones because they don't eat flies and only eat 'real bugs'.



I should have been more specific but to me it's always been a sarcastic remark made by me or those fishing around me to mean we only catch the dumb ones. The smart ones are still swimming.

In reality the only dumb fish are the ones fresh from the hatchery. Anyone who has fished the Huron for the planters can attest to this. Tie up a fly to look like a liver pellet and it will take more fish than the most prevalent of bugs naturally existing in the water.

I've always considered the term to be tongue in cheek.


----------



## toto

On the 80-90% thing, I wonder how much mortality there is with mishandling the fish for C&R, vs hooking mortality. Now theres a study someone should do, if its at all possible.


----------



## Splitshot

WILDCATWICK said:


> There are "easier" fish than others though out a whole system where trout habitat is suitable. The comments and wording of "stupider" trout in F.O. water to me is either just a comment without thought or it's an attempt to try to ruffle feathers. Either way unnecessary IMO. Heck there is no scientific data for it and the people that are bringing it up require science only to make judgments.
> 
> The majority of my 20"+ fish have been caught out of regulated water. By some peoples logic here that must mean that the stupid fish all hang out in non regulated water.


On days when conditions are right the fact that trophy trout are easier to catch in non gear restricted waters has no merit in your argument and does not disprove the existence of easy fish.

Ill try to explain it again so even you can understand it. Easy fish are those that can be tricked into taking an offering over and over and over again. Usually they are found in the same place week after week. People who catch fish for others often refer to them as money fish. I could print the names of some guides who clearly understand and know what I mean, but what is the point. If you catch a trophy trout from a trout pond, I dont care. It only bothers me when you post a picture of a trophy trout you caught from a trout pond and pretend it was caught somewhere else in order to boost your ego. Same with a guy who shoots a trophy deer in a pen and then pretends he is a real hunter.

My problem with easy fish has nothing to do with your ego but because I believe it is one underlying reason some fly fishermen push so hard for No Kill yet pretend that no kill regulations protect the fishery or foster better trophy fishing. Fish biologist who specialize in trout from all over the country take the same position as our MI DNR fish biologist that these rules are there only for social reasons and have nothing to do with fostering better fishing.

The very fact that so many trophy trout are caught in no kill waters is actually evidence that easy fish exist. Circumstantial evidence can be found in the Gates Lodge trophy log if you looked at it with an open mind. 



TC-fisherman said:


> Thats true.
> 
> There are some who have been posting for years "fish in FO only water are easy or dumb" coincidentally at the same time time they criticize FO water and anyone who fishes it. They have about zero credibility


Coming from a guy who has never posted a picture of a fish on this site and who only has negative things to say makes another incredible post. I dont criticize people who fish flies only waters as I would then be criticizing myself and many of my good friends who fish them. When you make those kind of unfounded statements TC it is your credibility that comes into question.

As for your straw dog David, in your post you stated


WILDCATWICK said:


> I find it about as comparable as saying that fishing with a worm is harder or more challenging. Let's do this, I'll fish a worm and you fish a nymph for 7 days straight and change beats every day and see what method catches more. Granted it's easier to fish the fly during some hatches


I never said nymph fishing was easier than bait fishing, in fact nymph fishing is clearly much more difficult and is the main reason I dont do it. Again the reason I fish is to catch trout. Your last sentence in that quote ( Granted it's easier to fish the fly during some hatches) ironically makes my point. Both of you guys keep trying to foster the idea that I somehow hate fly fishermen even when I say over and over that I fly fish myself. I have been fly fishing for about 50 years so my opinions are based on lots of experience like the challenge of dry fly fishing.. The challenge of dry fly fishing is not the act of catching trout on a dryfly but finding rising trout. Once you find them taking flies off the surface, the rest is pretty simple and not very challenging.

Shupac,

I hope this post clarifies the meaning of easy fish. Im not going back and read all my old posts, but easy is usually the term I use to describe them although when if I did use the terms dumb or stupid to describe them everyone knew what I was talking about. As you can see from this thread, anyone can make statements to defend a position but if you want to make credible arguments that are cogent, logic and facts are required.


----------



## shotgunner

Shupac said:


> Fish that aren't bothered much will take a fly more easily, but I find they require a stealthier approach. One false step approaching a trickle in the UP and the brookies bolt. Sometimes in the holy water fish will rise a rod's length away and don't get especially concerened if you move a step in their direction. They may ignore your fly, but they don't run.


Excellant observation. It's my belief that fish in highly pressured areas become conditioned to human presence. They figure out how to continue with their feeding and routines regardless. A lot like a mature Doe will bring her fawns near even after shes figured out your there occasionally but have never bothered her at all.

One of the most humbling things I've exerienced is casting tiny flies during a spinnerfall to a steady riser. He may take a fly 3 inches from yours, ignoring it on other drifts, and eventually drops downstream 8' - 10' and resumes feeding!! He knew the score the entire time. I'm not talking about 'flogging' repeated casts in there either.. decent intermission with best presentation your capable of.. that wasn't good enough.

I haven't had the pleasure of fishing out west but have spent a lot of time talking with numerous friends who have, over many states. They feel that our educated fish are as discriminating as most you'll find anywhere. 


Fish that don't often see people are extremely skittish.. but they take well


----------



## WILDCATWICK

"The very fact that so many trophy trout are caught in no kill waters is actually evidence that easy fish exist. Circumstantial evidence can be found in the Gates Lodge trophy log if you looked at it with an open mind."



Yes easier fish then others exist. But F.O. water has nothing to do with it at all. Gates trophy log only shows a few caught in the "holy waters" and trust me most that go for trophys do not spend their time in that water.


----------



## Ranger Ray

WILDCATWICK said:


> Ranger, it is a social law which is just like restrictions on motors on our lakes and rivers. There are many people who don't mind those restrictions that are in place to manage our resources for different experiences and uses. This can also be seen in our trail systems.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Most liked I know with motor restrictions, were because of environmental issues. If it was done just because someone wanted it, then its wrong. Just because someone is doing something wrong over there doesn't justify to to it wrong over here. If we made a blue ribbon trout stream bait only, that was used by a lot of fly guys, is that what they would say? That its ok give the bait guys the Pine, we have our own water. I am selling swamp land? You appear to be in the market. LOL!
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## WILDCATWICK

_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## WILDCATWICK

It's obvious that you think it is just wrong. But that is nothing more than an opinion. It is an opinion when one says that resources should be managed for different opportunities and different uses. Just as it's an opinion to say that only science should be used in determining how resources are used. Then there is also opinions on what science is important to consider when it comes to how our resource is used. 
The use of motors or not was just an opinion on how to manage our resources for different uses. I have no problem with some social management as long as its not too unfair or over the top.....but again that's nothing more than an opinion.

Where is some legislative, legal, or mission statement that say our resources our to be managed only by science?
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## cadillacjethro

WILDCATWICK said:


> Where is some legislative, legal, or mission statement that say our resources our to be managed only by science?
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


 
If the decisions dealing with resource managment are based on science/biology, you can eliminate battles between different scocial groups. Why wouldn't you want to do this? Include as many of the _public_ on_ public_ lands as you can. "We are doing this because it's what is best for the rescouce" leaves little room for argument. Again, just my opinion.


----------



## WILDCATWICK

_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## WILDCATWICK

Why wouldn't I want to use science only? Because I don't believe it would maximize and diversify the potential opportunities of our resources. 

Then who decides how science is applied? Science may say that fish populations increase in catch and release sections but decreases the average size. So what do you do? Have both kill and no kill sections to try to maximize different opportunities or do you pick one or the other method for all streams? Either way your back to an opinion not black and white science like I think some here would think it would be if only science is used. 

I'll go back to non motered lakes. If science was only was used there would be no such thing as non motor lakes and rivers. Kind of limiting for those wanting to go paddle somewhere without wake and noise isn't it? 

I certainly don't know where the lines should be drawn or social influences on our reoircws but I do think they have their place. I think there now should be less fly only water but am fine with our non motorized lakes well maybe they could improve on that a touch but it's only my opinion.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## toto

The problem with social science, as I see it, is just what is it? Is it a thing where the majority of people do a certain thing? In this case, we'll use fly fishing, is it something the majority of anglers use? I don't know the answer to that. 

What I do see as a problem with social science in general, is we are typically talking about those that have ($), vs. those that don't. Is that a fair way to decide who can do what? That is why the DNR/NRC needs to look at biology for their decisions. Biology can't be purchased, it shows what it shows. In this case, again, are the fish in a certain stretch of stream in trouble? If so, then, and only then, do something to improve it. Whether thats a complete closure, or flies only or whatever, I don't think anyone would have a problem with that.

As for motors, there are some lakes that just aren't conducive to having motors. They are too small, or other factors that would dictate it. I'm not sure of what lakes are regulated this way, but I'm sure there are reasons for it, whether they be safety reasons, which I can understand, or social reasons, which are argumentative.


----------



## fishinDon

I was recently sent a study by one of the other MS Members (rmr) done in Ohio by their DNR in Lake Erie's "Steelhead Alley." The data is pretty recent, from fall 2008 and spring 2009. It shows an 89% voluntary C/R rate:

"An estimated 139,769 steelhead were captured in the study areas during the survey period, of which 124,286 (89%) were released."​
If anyone wants a copy of the full study, which is about many things besides just the C/R rate, PM me your email and I'll send it out.

Back to the original point of this thread...when 89% of the fish are being thrown back, it's pretty likely that "easy" fish are everywhere.
Don


----------



## Abel

Hunting seasons....ok
Flies guys can have the strectch between 37 and Gleasons from May to Sep1, spoon guys get it from Sep to Nov, bait from Nov to Mar, Pinners from mar to May. Ooops, no wait, flies get it all the time. So your bow hunting theory is out the door, not even in the same park.

Motor and gun restrictions are, at least as far as I have seen, for safety. No of us would have an issue if flies were proven safer for people on a stretch of river, but it's not. So that whole gun and motor theory doesn't hold water either.

Everything that is used to try and fight for retaining the flies only sections works about as well as nailing jello to the wall.


----------



## shotgunner

fishinDon said:


> Back to the original point of this thread...when 89% of the fish are being thrown back, it's pretty likely that "easy" fish are everywhere.
> Don


One thing I do not  agree with is the abundant E-Z fish theory  are they into S&M or what :yikes:

Don; I do really like the way you conduct yourself though. Very refreshing! Thanks for setting a fine example.


----------



## WILDCATWICK

_Posted via Mobile Device_Abel, many lakes have motor restrictions for social reasons. Reasons having nothing to do with science or safety. Lakes even get these restrictions den local municipalities who are often approached by lake association of an organization who wants to see a resource used in a particular manner.
I think a lot of people here would benefit by looking into these lakes just a bit.


----------



## fishinDon

shotgunner said:


> One thing I do not  agree with is the abundant E-Z fish theory  are they into S&M or what :yikes:
> 
> Don; I do really like the way you conduct yourself though. Very refreshing! Thanks for setting a fine example.


Thanks Shotgunner! Better keep an eye on those easy fish, never know what they're up to! 

Seriously though, this has been a good debate. 
Do I think some fish are easier to catch than others? Yes.
Do I think some fish learn over time to avoid being caught? Yes.

Maybe that's why this is such a good debate, if both of those things are true, then what? 

Don


----------



## WILDCATWICK

fishinDon said:


> Thanks Shotgunner! Better keep an eye on those easy fish, never know what they're up to!
> 
> Seriously though, this has been a good debate.
> Do I think some fish are easier to catch than others? Yes.
> Do I think some fish learn over time to avoid being caught? Yes.
> 
> Maybe that's why this is such a good debate, if both of those things are true, then what?
> 
> Don


Well said Don. I think your statement holds true in all waters.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## TODDFATHER

Analysis, analysis. Way too deep for me. I just love dragging my stupid ass down to a trout stream and catching dumb trout: very likely on a fly!


Toddfather


----------



## Ranger Ray

cadillacjethro said:


> If the decisions dealing with resource managment are based on science/biology, you can eliminate battles between different scocial groups. Why wouldn't you want to do this? Include as many of the _public_ on_ public_ lands as you can. "We are doing this because it's what is best for the rescouce" leaves little room for argument. Again, just my opinion.


Bingo.

Most don't understand the danger and precedent we are setting with the social issue. Big wilderness and quiet area are just a few popping up. Mark my word, leave it to the public to decide and we are doomed. See you in court comrade.


----------



## doogie mac

cadillacjethro said:


> I'm a fisherman who chooses a fly rod 99% of the time. The thought that I need special water because of my choice makes me ill. The day I become that selfish I'll jump in front of a bus. It is *only* fishing after all. If enough folks (average Joes) took a look at these special regs and asked "Are they scientifically significant?" you can bet they would be gone.


 Spot on.
Ill grab my fly rod because its what I choose to fish with,and quite frankly Ill drive past some of the best flies only water this side of the Missouri river.As Cadillac man stated,I too cant stand to think im a special fisherman or deserve a special stretch of water to enjoy my sport! One ofmy favorite rivers that has 100% natural trout reproduction and not one inch of flies only water fishes just fine thank-you.


----------



## Flyfisher

doogie mac said:


> One of my favorite rivers that has 100% natural trout reproduction and not one inch of flies only water fishes just fine thank-you.


As would the existing "flies only" waters if the regulations were removed. There are even DNR biologists that will agree with my statement.


----------

