# Is It Possible To Fish-out a Trout Stream?



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Over the years there have been many instances of members suggesting that it is possible, using legal fishing tactics, and fish-out a trout stream and ruin it for the future. Members have gotten on their pulpits and shouted to the heavens that fishermen are devastating this valuable resource that are trout. It is my contention that it is impossible to catch all the trout out of a stream and that includes smaller creeks. If the waterway holds trout anglers cannot catch them all........using legal fishing methods.

Of course, in small creeks, the population will be cut, but not fished out no matter how much fishing pressure the stream receives. As more and more trout are caught those that remain will find their own private hidey holes where they will lurk in impenetrable solid. Anglers simply can't get a lure, bait, or fly back into the deep recesses where these trout lie. On top of this the fish learn!!

When it comes to larger streams the ineptitude of us who ply the currents in the hopes of hooking and landing trout are even more inept.

Take a look at the photo below. How many trout, of all sizes, do you think might call this structure "home"? 10? 20? 50?

If you said "50" you'd be closer to actual fact in all probability. Remember, I said "trout" and that includes fish of all sizes from 1" up to 20". If and when...and the emphasis is on "If" that 20 incher is caught research has shown that it will be replaced by the next trout in the pecking order.

Our streams are full, some more than others, of such woody debris structures that we just can't get into.

That's it guys!

I say that it is impossible to catch all the trout out of a stream using legal methods.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

It's Darwinism at its finest--the less wary fish are taken while the cautious grow on and prosper. Is it impossible to fish out a trout stream, probably...because you'll never get all the fish that live under banks, stumps, sticks, etc. I've seen little creeks in my hometown that still have a few brook trout in them--a perfect example of not being to "fish out" a water way entirely. However, even if it's impossible to empty a stream, fishing pressure can reduce the amount of "relaxed" fish and the skill comes into enticing the ones that have seen it all. That's when it becomes "fishing" as opposed to just "catching." 

On the same token, it is possible to fish out steelhead sections--especially when you're talking about specific sections during the winter months. There's X amount of returning adults available in the lake and Y amount comes up during the fall. Those Y amounts settle into holes and runs and can easily be removed entirely due to high fishing pressure. If you have 50 miles of river, and Y amount of fish, it doesn't take long to beat the hell out of certain productive sections. Once water temps get to a certain point, you aren't going to get too many fish that travel 50 yards let alone 50 miles, so once the Y amount of fish are removed, you're pretty much done with those sections.


----------



## MPsteelheader (May 2, 2000)

here's an idea instead of talking about it do an experiment...

everytime you go "trout" fishing designate one river and one river only...

fish this stream all season long from the opener to the closing...

take a limit everyday you go(now im not stipulating fishing everyday just when you go)...

and see how good the fishing will be as the season "progresses"...


----------



## Hoosier Daddy (Jan 10, 2006)

I think I recognize that spot


----------



## 2PawsRiver (Aug 4, 2002)

I would agree that nobody will catch all the fish. I think it could be over fished and cut the fish population drasticly, but who would want to


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

2PawsRiver said:


> I would agree that nobody will catch all the fish. I think it could be over fished and cut the fish population drasticly, but who would want to


In a spot as pictured the population of catchable fish won't be cut drasitcally. As 1000casts said, guys will have to turn to "fishing" and that's where the skill comes in.

Here's another spot that is all too common.......thankfully......on most mid-size trout streams. Now tell me how one would get an offering that would entice the majority of trout that call this place home deep enough into the wood so a trout could be tempted and then tell me how'd you get the trout out FROM deep in the tangle and land it, especially one that is over 10" long.


----------



## ESOX (Nov 20, 2000)

Are you are saying that one could keep fishing the same section of river time after time all year, removing all the 16" and up fish you can legally catch, and the fishing on that section would never degrade over the course of the year? Or that the fishing would only be tougher for the inept?


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

ESOX said:


> Are you are saying that one could keep fishing the same section of river time after time all year, removing all the 16" and up fish you can legally catch, and the fishing on that section would never degrade over the course of the year? Or that the fishing would only be tougher for the inept?


I'm saying the fish don't always cooperate like you and others have suggested or implied Paul. Hell, I sure would like to catch 16"+ inch fish every time I went out fishing, but it doesn't happen like that as you know.

The fish wise up. They get smart. Tactics that work today won't work tomorrow. Today its minnows and that can change at any given moment when the trout switch their takings to some other bit of food or what they think is food.

Yes, I've had some great days fishing, but I certainly didn't catch anywhere near the majority of trout that resided in a hole. Keep in mind that I'm including trout of all sizes (the small ones eventually grow up).

If anyone has a stream where an angler can go on any given day or time and wrap themselves into a constant barrage of 12+" inch fish every time out please let me know via a private message or email. :lol:

Other than turning off we are also faced with the dilemma of trying to get our lure, bait, fly, etc. into those log jams and other tangles where trout can find refuge from us and other critters that would like to tangle with them.

Did I mention the uncounted spots in a medium to large trout stream that hold trout and rarely, if ever see a hook. Anyone spending time on one of these streams knows what I mean. It doesn't take much water to hold a trout, one foot of depth with overhead cover and some current will do nicely. Those spots rarely get fished.

I was trout fishing with Mitch last year on a NW stream that contained brookies for the most part. He took the largest fish from a hole in an undercut bank with an overhanging cedar tree that was no more than two feet deep and would have been bypassed by the vast majority of anglers (did I mention that we ran into no other fishermen that day and we never went more than a 1/2 mile from a well traveled road?)

What I'm saying is that you can't take ever fish out of a trout stream and if anyone thinks they can just fish a stretch every day and take oddles of 12+ inch fish out they're fishing streams that I've never heard of.


----------



## Ray Adams (Feb 17, 2006)

Gentlemen:

IMHO (and experience), you can fish a stream out. Like you said, Whit, smaller streams are more vulnerable to this. I have seen it in a favorite brookie stream I fish. Year after year, it gets less and less. I used to be able to take my wife, who fishes very little and have her land several 10" brookies there, now, as you said, they have wised up and also the numbers have diminished. Now I see "Walts Crawlers" blue cans along the banks, and people walking away with bulging creels. 

I am not opposed to the occasional taking and eating of trout or other game fish. However, I think if everyone took their limit every time they could, we would be in a world of hurt. Trout especially are targets of overfishing it seems. All I know is that if we all made the streams look better than when we left, and also imposed "personal limits" on what we took from said streams, there would be better fishing for all. 

Ray


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

IMHO, Whit is right on the money. A lot of the fall steelhead spots we fish we pound the heck out of all fall/winter. You would think after fishing certain holes 15-20 times in the winter, chumming etc... that you would have hit every descent trout in those holes, but yet every Jan/Feb we always land trout that we've never seen before. Were they there all along? Did they move in?? Who knows. I all know if it is amazing when taking out in the summer how many people ate the skunk or just hit a coule planters when you popped a half dozen 15"+ fish in the heat of the summer. I'm sure that theses guys leave with the impression that there are no large trout or that they have all been kept etc...

On the Big M, you'd be amazed at the size of some of the browns we've pulled out of a very popular spot, not to mention quite a few skams. When fishing there in the fall, I've yet to see anyone hook another skam or large trout even though the bank is lined with people. This is a stretch where a buddy of mine with the DNR that shocked this spot said they didn't shock any fish over 15", yet in early Sept. we always are hitting browns pushing the 20" mark. 

To be blunt, most guys that have the perception that a stream can be fished out have that impression because of their lack of success. If someone thinks that their success of lack of is the measure of the quality of a fishery, they really need an ego check. The guys that do well under most all circumstances are the ones that start the day "knowing" there are fish to be caught and work at trying to figure out how to catch them, not the ones that fish for a few hours with little success, call it a day and say that too many fish are being kept. From my experience, on any body of water there is always someone that is doing well.

As far as steelhead being fished out, on a very small stream, I guess. On the Mo, Rogue etc... I don't think so. When you are hammering steelhead and then a couple weeks later you can't buy one out of the same hole it is too easy to think they have been caught out. Case in point, there is a hole on the Mo that I fish a descent amount and you can be hitting 20+ fish a day in the fall/winter. Around Feb, unless there is a warm up, most days your lucky to hit 6 fish out of it. It would be easy to think people have kept them or they have spawned early and left, but where I would have not foul hooked a fish all fall/winter, all of a sudden your foul hooking 2-3 per day. They are still there, but for some reason they usually stop playing in Feb. Might be water temp, the fact that they have been in the river for months at that point etc... but they are there still in numbers, but are just inactive. 

You can have one of your best days for trout or steelhead, but you always have to remember, odds are, someone somewhere on that river probably did better. If I had a dollar for every guy I've talked to at the launch that was bragging about his 5 fish or cursing how they didn't hook anything on a day where we hooked 30+, I would be a rich man. And you know what, on those same days, I'm sure there were probably other boats that did better than us. 

IMHO, ego is the biggest deterent to developing fishing skills.


----------



## TC-fisherman (Feb 15, 2003)

yep, yank as many out fish as you want.... who cares if it decimates the population. It doesn' matter cause in one log jam there will be a fish hiding that no one can get to. 

At the risk of sounding like I'm getting on a pulpit and shouting to the heavens I'll say this: Thank god more and more people "get it" and realize their actions combined with others have an effect on streams. 

I would love to see someone post the deer hunting version of this = unlimited permits are okay because deep in the cedar swamp where no hunter can get to there will be a deer!


----------



## mechanical head (Jan 18, 2000)

TC-fisherman said:


> . I would love to see someone post the deer hunting version of this = unlimited permits are okay because deep in the cedar swamp where no hunter can get to there will be a deer!


If one Doe Deer layed over 100,000 fawns each spring you might think different..


----------



## Steelman (May 24, 2004)

mechanical head said:


> If one Doe Deer layed over 100,000 fawns each spring you might think different..


Now that would take one heck of a buck


----------



## alexsalmon (Feb 16, 2006)

I don't think its possible to "legally" wipe out a stream, now give me a case of dynamite and I will give it a shot! 

I used to take a lot of trout out of a creek near my house. I now release a lot of my fish, although there are fewer trout in this stream there are much bigger fish.
My biggest fish(almost) came from an undercut bank this weekend, I made a cast right down the middle nothing then got one right up tight to the bank and a at least 15+ fish swiped at my spinner twice! Its spots like that that can and do hold the hogs, they don't get that big being stupid.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

TC-fisherman said:


> yep, yank as many out fish as you want.... who cares if it decimates the population. It doesn' matter cause in one log jam there will be a fish hiding that no one can get to.
> 
> At the risk of sounding like I'm getting on a pulpit and shouting to the heavens I'll say this: Thank god more and more people "get it" and realize their actions combined with others have an effect on streams.
> 
> I would love to see someone post the deer hunting version of this = unlimited permits are okay because deep in the cedar swamp where no hunter can get to there will be a deer!


TC,
If your post is directed at me, you're talking to the wrong guy. I am not saying, advocating, promoting, or supporting of removing every and or most fish from a trout stream. I am merely posting a postulation that belies long held beliefs.


----------



## Ogre (Mar 21, 2003)

Does this have anything to do with reintroducing Grayling? ....We may not be able to fish out an area but we can eliminate the fish from an area by improper use of the overall water resource. This could include too much traffic in and around the water which could equate to over fishing.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

Ogre said:


> Does this have anything to do with reintroducing Grayling? .....


No! Not in the least.

The only purpose of my posting this thread is to discuss it in a mature, adult manner without the acromonius and very numbing debate that can infest threads on this site when members allow their personal feelings to override their common sense.........Nice sentence hey!!....:lol:


----------



## [email protected] (May 8, 2003)

I'll throw my two cents out there. I don't think that you can wipe out a stream especially the mid to larger sized rivers, but I do think that it will have an impact on the numbers of fish over time. The smaller the river the bigger the impact predation can have on it. I have seen some impact of over fishing on a small brookie creek that has easy access. It hasn't been wiped out, but there seems to be fewer fish. That could very well be a combination of things including my own laziness.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Some guys get it, some don't--as far as "spreading info" is concerned. I don't think it's possible to fish out a stream, but it is possible to over fish it. While I loathe all the publicity certain rivers get, it really doesn't change my approach to how I fish them. I'm confident enough in my abilities to read water, adjust techniques accordingly and get into my fair share of fish every time out. Now, that's not bragging or being cocky (at least it's not meant to be) it's merely the end result of years and years of learning, failing, learning some more, paying my dues and then...click, the light switch went off so to speak. Hell, anyone that was here when I first joined this site knows that I used to be pretty cocky about my so called fishing skills. I wrote articles for magazines, dispensed my imaginary wisdom and pretty much was one of those "legends in my own mind" so to speak. Uh...yeah, right. As much as I hate to admit it, meeting TSS Caddis and having my a** handed to me out on the river was an eye opener--I had so much to learn, it wasn't even funny. I believe I finally "came into my own" by shutting up, starting from scratch basically and paying attention to the little things that can mean going from being happy with 5 fish, to thinking that 15 is a slow day. And really, that's what seperates "fishing" from "catching." There are times when you have to change your mindset completely--no matter what, you will always learn something new. Rivers don't get fished out, in a manner of speaking, but beating it to death can adversely effect the fishing. If you're receptive to, and aware of, the conditions you're facing, take some lesson from every failure and be willing to adjust your techniques accordingly, you'll find some success in any river you choose to fish. When it comes to fishing, my brain is like a computer--I watch and take in everything I can. Even something as simple as blasting upriver in a boat is an excercise in observation for me. I see where other boats are parked and I try to figure out kind of water they're fishing or what they're using--possibly for future reference. When I only have a day where 5 steelhead were hooked, I spend that next evening thinking about things I could have done differently or how the conditions should have dictated this or that. 

When fishing conditions change due to weather or pressure, you have to find an answer for it quickly--or else the 'ol skunk will be around you all day. That's what makes fishing so challenging--and rewarding.

No matter what, I'll never have it all figured out and I'll still be learning until they put me in the ground...


----------



## mechanical head (Jan 18, 2000)

thousandcasts said:


> When I only have a day where 5 steelhead were hooked QUOTE]
> 
> Oh come off your high horse, replace day with week and that's more like it:lol:
> 
> Are we fishing the Grand out of carp this weekend or what..I figure two 15 yard dump trucks one with corn and the other with shredded wheat ought to get us a good start...


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

thousandcasts said:


> Nope, they've switched over to steelheading...seriously. Where one used to see one or two boats on the river in January, now there's two-dozen. And this has been such a rapid increase...like within the past two or three years.


I think you're right Hutch. This is especially true on the rivers near urban areas, the Grand, Mo, Kazoo, and St. Joe. This will only get more crowded as gas prices rise and anglers want to stay home.

On the Big Manistee, which I fish in the winter, but only rarely on weekends, there is more boat traffic although not nearly as dense you experience down there except during the prime time of the steelie run and I imagine during the salmon runs as well which I avoid like I would VD..........so far successfully!.......:lol:


----------



## Splitshot (Nov 30, 2000)

Whit,

Steelhead and planted trout are indeed a separate topic and we might as well keep some of them since there is very little chance they will be back next year. The exception might be to release the winter steelhead as there is a good chance someone else might actually catch them again.

Dennis,

I take that as a real compliment coming from a fisherman that catches fish the way you do. Thanks! I also felt compelled to say something nice about you too. lol All I can say is if I ever got into a fishing tournament you would be my first choice to captain my boat. (Assuming that captain Don was not available. lol) Couldnt help it Whit.

Paul,

It is difficult to say if catch and release has any effect on my fishing but if I had to guess, I would say it is minimal. I always give a quick look and the only fish I remember with past hook marks have been when I was fishing below places like Tippy. I attribute the increase in trout to habitat improvements on most of the trout rivers in the state. I have been involved mainly on the Little Manistee, but by being involved I have learned much about other rivers and organizations. I recommend it to everyone. You will get much more out of the experience than you put in.

There are over a hundred organizations in Michigan working on improving the habitat and stopping the sand from entering our rivers. Because of these organizations, I expect the fishing to continue to get better. For the most part I release most of the fish I catch and try not to fish the same stretch of river more than once a year. This year has been an exception.

Anyway, everyone that puts a premium on wild trout should join one of the many river organizations that are working to improve the habitat. It has been proven over and over that improving the habitat is the best long term solution to better trout fishing. Even if you could keep trout in the flies only section of the PM I believe the trout catching would be better than it is now in my opinion.

If I do fish the same stretch more than once, I try to fish different holes to try and learn more areas. I have been very surprised to find some places I never fished to hold more trout than the classic more obvious spots. I expect that is because of the increase in pressure. Besides this weekend I have seen only about 10 other fishermen outside the areas adjacent to access points where I have been fishing. On Sunday we had 4 canoes with a total of 8 guys catch up to us close to the end of our day. No one even had a bite all day.

My friend Mike stopped and gave them some bait and terminal tackle and told them how and where to catch them. When we stopped at the bar in Irons Sunday night for a burger, there were a dozen guys from out of state that overheard Mike tell a friend that we had caught a few trout. Turns out they were fly fishing the same river as we were and not one of them even had a strike all day. Mike tells the guy I will show him the trout I caught for my mother and when I finally do, he is asking directions to the bait shop. His friends however were not interested in us low life bait dunkers. 

Anyway catch and release is a good thing mainly because I think it makes some people feel like they are really doing something good for the fish and their fellow fishermen. I think it goes to far when people question your morals when you dont agree with them. I guess it is the same with musky. I wouldnt keep one but if some guy catches a keeper musky and wants to take it home I dont care. If he is following the rules I wont tell him what to do and he should have the same respect for me. Same with any fish really.

One other point Paul;


ESOX said:


> Are you are saying that one could keep fishing the same section of river time after time all year, removing all the 16" and up fish you can legally catch, and the fishing on that section would never degrade over the course of the year? Or that the fishing would only be tougher for the inept?


If that were possible it would indeed degrade that section of river or stream, but in my opinion that hardly ever happens. In a good stream with plenty of food and 8 inch fish can grow 4 or 5 inches by the end of summer and a 12" fish can grow 3 or 4 inches while a 15" fish might grow only 2 to 3inches in the same time frame. Im not sure my last statement is accurate, but I will check it out with Mark Tonello tomorrow. I do know the growth rates very with each stream and river.

I wish I knew what over fishing meant Steve and perhaps I could agree. The more pressure you put on a system, the more the fish learn to avoid the fishermen. Hunting works the same way. Personally I agree with TSS that ego is the biggest obstacle to overcome to be a very good fisherman. 

Some guys learn how to hook a few and think they know it all. That is when I think the learning stops. The reason Dennis is so proficient is because he has no ego when it comes to fishing. If your catching fish, he is a quick study. No attitude or ego. He just wants to know what your doing. 

I am the same way and Im as quick to ask him whats up as he is to ask me. Quest has the same unassuming attitude and I think why he is way ahead of most guys his age. I do think Ill have to ask him not to share everything I tell him with some of the wanna bees though. Whit knows what Im talking about too. Sometimes it is the little things that separate the guys who catch fish and the guys that dont.

I have never fished with TSS, but I look forward to it. I like a guy who enjoys wading out in the middle of 200 hung over, tired meat fishermen after they have been standing in the river for 6 hours and land a couple of trophy fish and toss them back and then complain about the slow fishing is and leaves. 

I have fished with a lot of guys from this site and many of them strike off on their own so they can prove that they can catch fish. Invariably it is the ones that stick close that turn out to be the best fishermen because they want to learn something. I have figured out a lot of stuff on my own, but most of what I have learned I stole from other people. The trick is only stealing from the best. As far as Whits premise, I think he is dead right. No way, no how are you going to hurt the fishery through legal means. Educate the fish catch out some of the easy biters yes, but not damage the fishery. My opinion for what it is worth!


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

> I wish I knew what over fishing meant Steve and perhaps I could agree. The more pressure you put on a system, the more the fish learn to avoid the fishermen.


That's exactly what I meant, Ray. The more the fish avoid the fishermen, the greater the reward in catching them--because it means you're improving your skills. I guess a case in point in "over fishing" would be the Rogue River. That place is a freakin' zoo during the spring and those fish will get put down quicker than a dog with bad hips once the traffic starts. But...you can still get your fish if you work hard enough. One good example is that day I met up with you and Dennis this last spring. Bright sunshine, lots of people beating the water and negative reports from everyone that walked by. Yet...through patience we were able to hook up with several fish between the three of us. That's not something to brag about by any stretch of the imagination, but it does prove that one can still catch fish in "over-fished" conditions.

It just becomes a guessing game as to what have the fish already seen and what haven't they seen? To me, that's part of the fun.


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

> I think you're right Hutch. This is especially true on the rivers near urban areas, the Grand, Mo, Kazoo, and St. Joe. This will only get more crowded as gas prices rise and anglers want to stay home.


Well, the gas prices have an effect sure, but you've got to look at how the print media seems to have an affection for...what's a good phrase here...uh....pimping out certain rivers. For years it was the Big M, then the PM, The St. Joe has had more than it's share of press, now it seems a syndicated outdoor writer and the outdoor editor for a very large urban newspaper have taken up second jobs working for the Newaygo County Tourist Commission. Since they both appear in the same paper, when one isn't writing an article about how "hot" a certain river is, the other one is. Is it a coincidence that the traffic on this river tripled as soon as these bi-weekly expose's hit the outdoor section? I think not, so it's really softened my stance on the internet thing since it seems the print media (specifically the newspapers) is far more dangerous to our waterways than a few internet reports. Must be the Newaygo Tourist Commission is paying them by the article, because even now I don't think that paper can go a whole month without publishing some article about this river.  "Smallmouth...blah,blah!" "Trout Bonanza...yada,yada!"


----------



## Steve (Jan 15, 2000)

thousandcasts said:


> Well, the gas prices have an effect sure, but you've got to look at how the print media seems to have an affection for...what's a good phrase here...uh....pimping out certain rivers. For years it was the Big M, then the PM, The St. Joe has had more than it's share of press, now it seems a syndicated outdoor writer and the outdoor editor for a very large urban newspaper have taken up second jobs working for the Newaygo County Tourist Commission. Since they both appear in the same paper, when one isn't writing an article about how "hot" a certain river is, the other one is. Is it a coincidence that the traffic on this river tripled as soon as these bi-weekly expose's hit the outdoor section? I think not, so it's really softened my stance on the internet thing since it seems the print media (specifically the newspapers) is far more dangerous to our waterways than a few internet reports. Must be the Newaygo Tourist Commission is paying them by the article, because even now I don't think that paper can go a whole month without publishing some article about this river.  "Smallmouth...blah,blah!" "Trout Bonanza...yada,yada!"


Thanks for seeing the point I've tried to make here repeatedly to this end.


----------



## gomer (Dec 30, 2000)

Hutch,

It is no surpize that it gets so much press, I mean come on...



> Picture yourself fly fishing form a drift boat or jet sled down a broad magnificent river - surrounded by tall pine and hardwood forests. Long wide riffles, deep pools and long eddies the size of several football fields hold brown and rainbow trout surface feeding to prolific hatches of mayflies, caddis and midges all day long - some fish approaching trophy proportions. Wild steelhead up to 20 lbs. And pacific king salmon in the 40 lb. Class haunt the river's gravel runs


:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Razzo (Feb 17, 2005)

thousandcasts said:


> ...I don't think it's possible to fish out a stream, but it is possible to over fish it....


I agree.

Russ


----------



## trouttime (Mar 30, 2004)

No! At least in my case you actually have to hit the river to "out fish' it  

I'll see ya this weekend, cant wait its been a while!!


----------



## thousandcasts (Jan 22, 2002)

Gomer--the sputnik effect is hurting yes (especially since every fly fishing mag in the lower 48 is doing their part to pimp), but the local big paper (with circulation along the entire western half of the state) is more than doing their share with relentless and constant articles about that one river. When you figure in that the syndicated writer appears in other large newspapers, all you can do is shake your head and go "what the (insert word here). It's just a matter of time before the print media starts in on "Re-discover the joys of stream trout" and starts writing about every beaver pond or brook trout haven in the northern lower peninsula.


----------



## MPsteelheader (May 2, 2000)

thousandcasts said:


> Gomer--the sputnik effect is hurting yes (especially since every fly fishing mag in the lower 48 is doing their part to pimp), but the local big paper (with circulation along the entire western half of the state) is more than doing their share with relentless and constant articles about that one river. When you figure in that the syndicated writer appears in other large newspapers, all you can do is shake your head and go "what the (insert word here). It's just a matter of time before the print media starts in on "Re-discover the joys of stream trout" and starts writing about every beaver pond or brook trout haven in the northern lower peninsula.


hey guys in order for this art/sport to survive more and more anglers need to join...

last time i checked business needs to be there for a business to survive...

i hate to say it but you have not one but 6 major cities all within 500 miles of these waters(chicago, milwaukee, detroit, indianapolis, grand rapids, and cleveland)...

word gets out...

the dnr has a deficit to deal with now...

if tourism doesn't bring in some more liscense purchases management of said "trout" streams could and would be over...

they've already cut salmon stockings...

next in line, you got it trout stockings...


----------



## riverman (Jan 9, 2002)

thousandcasts said:


> Gomer--the sputnik effect is hurting yes (especially since every fly fishing mag in the lower 48 is doing their part to pimp), but the local big paper (with circulation along the entire western half of the state) is more than doing their share with relentless and constant articles about that one river. When you figure in that the syndicated writer appears in other large newspapers, all you can do is shake your head and go "what the (insert word here). It's just a matter of time before the print media starts in on "Re-discover the joys of stream trout" and starts writing about every beaver pond or brook trout haven in the northern lower peninsula.


Everytime I buy a Ludington newspaper there is an article about fishing some stream for some species by a member of this site just starting his journalism career. Next time your fishing with him, ask him to quit doing it!!!!!


----------



## dinoday (Feb 22, 2004)

Whit1 said:


> On the Big Manistee, which I fish in the winter, but only rarely on weekends, there is more boat traffic although not nearly as dense you experience down there except during the prime time of the steelie run and I imagine during the salmon runs as well which I avoid like I would VD..........so far successfully!.......:lol:


 :gaga: 
There's more than one person on that river that could use a voice of reason in the fall (and the spring too for that matter:lol: )


----------



## Erik (Jan 17, 2000)

Personally I feel like if a stream is totally left to natural reproduction then yes given enough pressure it is possible to fish it out. Maybe not to the point of completely wiping out the species, but certainly to the point that the fishing in that stream could become very poor. 
Now the key word here is "possible". I don't think it's probable, but I do think it's possible. At least in the sense that I described above.
Just my opinion.


----------



## TSS Caddis (Mar 15, 2002)

riverman said:


> Everytime I buy a Ludington newspaper there is an article about fishing some stream for some species by a member of this site just starting his journalism career. Next time your fishing with him, ask him to quit doing it!!!!!


No kidding:lol: I would have thought there would have been enough drunken people doing silly things up there to keep Joe busy for a life time:lol:


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

TSS Caddis said:


> No kidding:lol: I would have thought there would have been enough drunken people doing silly things up there to keep Joe busy for a life time:lol:


There are!! :lol:


----------



## fishinDon (May 23, 2002)

A couple questions for those of you more educated in the ways of stream restoration than I...

Is there anything that you can do in terms of stream restoration to keep those towering sand banks from pouring into the river? Or is there just too much sand to hold back? What about keeping people off of those hillsides? I know the forest service tells you to stay off of the hills, and tells you about the sand turtles and their eggs, but is there anything you can do that would really stop people from climbing?


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

fishinDon said:


> A couple questions for those of you more educated in the ways of stream restoration than I...
> 
> Is there anything that you can do in terms of stream restoration to keep those towering sand banks from pouring into the river? Or is there just too much sand to hold back? What about keeping people off of those hillsides? I know the forest service tells you to stay off of the hills, and tells you about the sand turtles and their eggs, but is there anything you can do that would really stop people from climbing?


Open a season on them.......nah that would never work, they can't manage the animals they have now  :lol:


----------



## dinoday (Feb 22, 2004)

fishinDon said:


> A couple questions for those of you more educated in the ways of stream restoration than I...
> 
> Is there anything that you can do in terms of stream restoration to keep those towering sand banks from pouring into the river? Or is there just too much sand to hold back? What about keeping people off of those hillsides? I know the forest service tells you to stay off of the hills, and tells you about the sand turtles and their eggs, but is there anything you can do that would really stop people from climbing?


 I don't know what you can do as an individual,but I know TU and a few sportsman groups have done work on several streams.
I know the High Banks area of the Au Sable and Suicide Bend on the Big M have had work done to decrease the amount of sand falling off the hills.
That work has helped those areas out significantly.


----------



## Whit1 (Apr 27, 2001)

One of the problems in holding back the sand in certain areas of the state is trying to get the cooperation of the U.S. Forest Service. Keeping people off the hill would be simple. Drop a whole series of tall red pines at the base of the hill and work them up several yards up the hill making an impenetrable maze of limbs that would deter most climbers. Put them down into the water and that would block the landing area for canoes and kayaks.


----------



## phlyphisher (Aug 15, 2001)

riverman said:


> Everytime I buy a Ludington newspaper there is an article about fishing some stream for some species by a member of this site just starting his journalism career. Next time your fishing with him, ask him to quit doing it!!!!!


If you've noticed, the person in question  never focuses on location. The focus is always on techniques, and that leads to better success in the end. That's the premise: teaching a technique, not exploitation of a place. 

It goes back to ego &#8212; if you're willing to tag along and learn something, you'll be a better fisherman because of it. For instance, you could put Mr. Danders on a mud puddle in the middle of Detroit, and he'd find a way to catch a trout out of it. I'd rather read about HOW he did it so much as care WHERE he did it.


----------

