# Paint Creek Monster



## DE82 (Nov 28, 2007)

Kory said:


> No, you aren't getting it...
> 
> He only wanted to blame the big fish for eating Trout and being detrimental to the fish population, but I was pointing out that these 12"-16" fish that he thinks of as no threat eat a ton of Trout as well.


How many times are you going to respond without READING the post your responding to? Simply put you are wrong when you say 12-16inch trout eat as many small trout as trout over 20inches. 


> He never said anything about numbers of big Trout, he said big Trout, period. Learn to read...


 :lol: Says the guy who isn't reading what I'm typing. Oh the irony :lol:


> His statement plain and simple was that big Trout are detrimental to the health of a fishery and a Trout population. He never stated that if there was to many of them or anything like that...


Again, not reading This is what he said "Its cool that you let a big fish like that go...*However, monsters like that can do more damage to the trout population than what they contribute. *As trout grow to the larger size ranges, they begin to prey more on fish than insects and this means that the big trout eat more young trout than they may produce. *Brown trout can spawn when they reach 12 inches in size and trout that are 12-16 inches should all ways be released because they live on a more diverse diet. This diverse diet has less negative impact on the stream trout population, than the big trout diet of small fish(trout). *Often, one can tell if a very large trout is living in an area, by a lack of smaller trout present. I prefer to fish where there are greater numbers of mixed size trout than what I call "dead zones" where large trout lurk."

Doesn't seam hard to understand to me. Read it again until you get it. 


> It isn't because I don't agree with them it's because any scientist would never agree with the exact claim he made or that big Trout are detrimental to the health of an ecosystem. This guy never stated anything about overpopulation or anything, he just stated big Trout.
> 
> By the way, how many Trout streams in Michigan do you think have a problem with overpopulation of big Trout? I bet you can't name one...


I bet I can name more than one, then again that point is not hear nor there, try going back and reading ALL of the posts you commented on and see if you get it yet. Seams like your a little quick on the reply button if you ask me. Slow down and you might learn something, trust me.


----------



## Kory (Oct 7, 2007)

It is not false that 12"-16" Browns are going to eat more Trout than 20"+ Trout as think about how many more 12"-16" Trout there are in an ecosystem than 20"+ fish...

Those 20" plus fish may eat one Trout over 6" every few days, where as those small fish may eat 5-6 tiny Trout per day. Add in the fact there is a lot more of them and you do the math.

20"+ fish do eat more fish than they do insects, but they still eat insects in large quantities.

He never once mentioned overpopulation of big fish. He is wrong that they do not produce more fish than they contribute.

Bottom line his post makes it out to sound like big Trout ruin Trout populations and this is simply not true. You are trying to say that mother nature cannot keep a systems of checks & balances if left alone and that is just ignorant.

You are absolutely full of it when you say you know of all these streams that are overpopulated with big Trout.

You are attempting to say that everything that is known in the science world about natural selection and the predator/prey relationship is false. That just blows my mind...

You guys are still not realizing that these big Trout eat a lot more than just Trout.

It is obvious we are not going to agree here. I am done arguing it...

Have a good Fall


----------



## DE82 (Nov 28, 2007)

Kory said:


> It is not false that 12"-16" Browns are going to eat more Trout than 20"+ Trout as think about how many more 12"-16" Trout there are in an ecosystem than 20"+ fish...


Yes it is, sorry to burst your bubble but there are just as many 16inch trout as 20 inch trout on any given stream. That could be one reason why an over 20 inch stream trout is the benchmark for a big stream trout in most peoples minds.


> Those 20" plus fish may eat one Trout over 6" every few days, where as those small fish may eat 5-6 tiny Trout per day. Add in the fact there is a lot more of them and you do the math.


Again incorrect. Water temp and other factors have a lot to do with how much a fish eats, no matter what it's size. Those smaller fish will eat more insects and other food than the 20+ inch fish, it's well documented as PC Tweek said in his first post that you didn't bother to read as I pointed out in my last post. 


> 20"+ fish do eat more fish than they do insects, but they still eat insects in large quantities.


Again, depending on the time of year this is true. Right after a hatch when insects are easier prey than a trout or bait fish this is true, how ever it's now ALWAYS true. That's the problem your having with this issue. There is no middle ground with you. It's always or never, no sometimes. 


> He never once mentioned overpopulation of big fish. He is wrong that they do not produce more fish than they contribute.


He implied it, something I picked up on so it couldn't have been THAT hard to get and yes he is in fact correct in saying that at times a big trout can do more hard than good. For instance, you don't think a trout that just had a spawn hatch isn't going to eat some of it's own young? I do. 


> Bottom line his post makes it out to sound like big Trout ruin Trout populations and this is simply not true. You are trying to say that mother nature cannot keep a systems of checks & balances if left alone and that is just ignorant.


No it doesn't, if you would slow down, go back and re-read it you would see that. Seams though you are too caught up in trying to look smart, we've all been guilty of it, don't let it get the best of you. No where in my post did I say mother nature doesn't balance things out but it takes more than the natural cycle of the world to make things right. Spend some time fishing with some of these great people and you'll learn that, I sure have. 


> You are absolutely full of it when you say you know of all these streams that are overpopulated with big Trout.


One would say your absolutely full of it with your knowledge of trout and trout steams too and it would hold as much water as your last comment. I find when people run out of way or prove a point or don't know how to prove it to begin with they go this rout. Good luck with that.


----------



## Kory (Oct 7, 2007)

There is a lot more 12"-16" Trout in a stream than 20" plus fish. How can you even argue this?

Man your comments are just so far off base I can't even begin to imagine...

Like I said man I am done arguing. 

How does that old saying go, never argue with stupid people as they will take you down to their level and beat you...


----------



## DE82 (Nov 28, 2007)

Kory said:


> There is a lot more 12"-16" Trout in a stream than 20" plus fish. How can you even argue this?


Probably because I've caught as many trout 16inches as I have 20inches. One has to wonder how many 12 inch trout you've caught when you make the comment they eat as many small trout as fish over 20 inches to be perfectly honest in the matter. Simple anatomy will say that is false 


> Man your comments are just so far off base I can't even begin to imagine...


Because you don't agree with the facts and think you know it all. It's really that simple. It's all or nothing with you, no middle ground. You'll find that's not the case in life to often. 


> Like I said man I am done arguing.


More than once now yet your still telling myself and others how wrong they are and what their posts say when your clearly not reading them. 


> How does that old saying go, never argue with stupid people as they will take you down to their level and beat you...


I would expect that comment from somebody who just doesn't get it and feels they know everything. A word of advice, meet up with some of these great Anglers on this forum, they will teach you more than you can ever figure, PM people, learn, that's what this is here for. You'll be a better angler for it and far more knowledgeable as well. I know, I've done it. Have a nice season.


----------



## RiverPlugs (Sep 18, 2008)

To be honest I wouldnt meet up with half these guys to take advice. There are more ignorant poeple on this site then you can shake a stick at. 

By the way do any of you hold a degree in conservation or marine biology? Or is it just awesome common sense that you are coming to these conclusions? 

BTW DE you got all of those 6 inch browns in the paint up there so what are you complaining about?


----------



## DE82 (Nov 28, 2007)

RiverPlugs said:


> To be honest I wouldnt meet up with half these guys to take advice. There are more ignorant poeple on this site then you can shake a stick at.


 :lol: Then leave, if we're all so stupid and don't know anything than why are you here? 


> By the way do any of you hold a degree in conservation or marine biology? Or is it just awesome common sense that you are coming to these conclusions?


As a matter of fact I'm a Marine Bio major and have met MANY a knowledgeable person on this forum that I've learned from. 


> BTW DE you got all of those 6 inch browns in the paint up there so what are you complaining about?


Nobody was complaining, just simply giving info  Some people :16suspect


----------



## Fishslayer5789 (Mar 1, 2007)

Jeez some guys must just sit on here all day. I am not going to take sides but IMO it is good to release larger trout because they carry the right genes to produce stronger healthy offspring. It really depends on the stream too. If there is no natural reporduction in the stream at all, then it would probably benefit the other trout in the stream if you kept the bigger fish. If there is natural reporduction, then it would be a good choice to throw the larger fish back. It goes both ways.


----------



## DE82 (Nov 28, 2007)

Fishslayer5789 said:


> Jeez some guys must just sit on here all day. I am not going to take sides but IMO it is good to release larger trout because they carry the right genes to produce stronger healthy offspring. It really depends on the stream too. If there is no natural reporduction in the stream at all, then it would probably benefit the other trout in the stream if you kept the bigger fish. If there is natural reporduction, then it would be a good choice to throw the larger fish back. It goes both ways.


My point is made....again.


----------



## spiro (Apr 16, 2008)

I would'nt be too proud. That homeowner hand feeds those fish all year long. Last time I was there, he had signs up saying no fishing "Paint Creek Trout Rehabilitation Project" or some **** like that. 

Of course, thats total bull ***** so I fired a fly in and proceeded to hook up with a fish that was so big it snapped my line. Next cast I landed a freakishly large rainbow. 

Fishing that spot is liking fishing in a trout farm....


----------



## Shoeman (Aug 26, 2000)

ENOUGH.....


----------

