Keeping Brookies?

Pat Lat

Mad Flyentist
#16
I just couldn't bring myself to kill a native fish in a stream. That's why I specified Brookies. The math is really easy. Suppose there's six good pools per mile on skinny water. And there are five catchable trout per pool. The rest are in from a lake or river for spawning or just dinks. One good fly fisher could empty a mile of stream in a few trips if they were keeping them. Now consider the sheer numbers of fisher persons on our streams. Poachers alone already keep too many fish.
Our brook trout may be wild, but not native. so take a break mid day and throw them in a foil package on the fire and call it lunch
 

Kent Lufkin

Remember when you could remember everything?
#17
Kudos to all who quite rightly recognize that brook trout were introduced prior to a full understanding of their extremely negative impact on native species. WDFW forbids brook trout from being stocked in any public waters for good reason. Brookies outcompete native coastal cutthroat and rainbows for available food and outreproduce them thanks to their wider tolerance of available spawning conditions (primarily in lakes).

Lakes full of 6-7 year old brookies that are the same number of inches long with big heads and snakelike bodies are a testimony to wrongheaded decisions almost a century ago to introduce them into our waters. While in some fisheries, native species (particularly coastal cutts) are able to retain a toehold against the brook trout onslaught, some fishers I know do indeed toss them up on the bank to die. It's not illegal and there's a sound ethical justification for doing so.

K
 
#18
Eeesh, the plot thickens. Thanks for the input, Kent. I guess I'd bonk a brookie if it was the right thing to do for conservation, so here's my question: do I have an ethical obligation to remove a little 6 inch dink that I pull out of the SF regardless of whether the regulations state that I can't "keep" anything under 10 inches?
 
#19
Eeesh, the plot thickens. Thanks for the input, Kent. I guess I'd bonk a brookie if it was the right thing to do for conservation, so here's my question: do I have an ethical obligation to remove a little 6 inch dink that I pull out of the SF regardless of whether the regulations state that I can't "keep" anything under 10 inches?

You might have an ethical obligation but it's against the law unfortunately. :eek: I've been wanting to recommend to WDFW that they set a no size limit on brook trout anywhere they inhabit and rid the conflict that's in the regs for the waters like the SF.
 

scottr

Active Member
#20
Eeesh, the plot thickens. Thanks for the input, Kent. I guess I'd bonk a brookie if it was the right thing to do for conservation, so here's my question: do I have an ethical obligation to remove a little 6 inch dink that I pull out of the SF regardless of whether the regulations state that I can't "keep" anything under 10 inches?
My favorite western river (the best river I have ever fished & no I'm not going to name it) used to have 16"-20" bows and cutts that you could sight fish to all day with attractor patterns. Recently it has gone downhill as the stream gets less angler pressure now so the brookies that were introduced in the 1900s by a group of Boston fat cats have taken over and the native fishery is in major decline.

Brook Trout are a gorgeous fish but don't belong in the west.
 

Kent Lufkin

Remember when you could remember everything?
#21
You might have an ethical obligation but it's against the law unfortunately. :eek: I've been wanting to recommend to WDFW that they set a no size limit on brook trout anywhere they inhabit and rid the conflict that's in the regs for the waters like the SF.
That's an interesting conundrum and one worth taking up with WDFW. There's an IFPAG meeting soon and I'll be happy to make the case.

K
 
#22
Kudos to all who quite rightly recognize that brook trout were introduced prior to a full understanding of their extremely negative impact on native species. WDFW forbids brook trout from being stocked in any public waters for good reason. Brookies outcompete native coastal cutthroat and rainbows for available food and outreproduce them thanks to their wider tolerance of available spawning conditions (primarily in lakes).

Lakes full of 6-7 year old brookies that are the same number of inches long with big heads and snakelike bodies are a testimony to wrongheaded decisions almost a century ago to introduce them into our waters. While in some fisheries, native species (particularly coastal cutts) are able to retain a toehold against the brook trout onslaught, some fishers I know do indeed toss them up on the bank to die. It's not illegal and there's a sound ethical justification for doing so.

K
You sure it's not illegal to waste a gamefish?
 
#23
Some of the streams around here would be barren if not for brookies. There are several I don't think are worse for it that don't let them reach any streams where they compete. And there are several that they shouldn't be in, and F&G are trying to eradicate. They did get rid of all the brookies and restocked the one stream that had cutts with"native" westslopes on the rez. So one small victory.
 
#26
I'm all for taking brookies from streams and rivers that have indigenous populations of other fish. But tossing them up on the banks makes no sense, is illegal, and yes, I do believe un-ethical. You can't make me believe you can't find someone to take tasty brookies off your hands.
 

Kent Lufkin

Remember when you could remember everything?
#29
. . . But tossing them up on the banks makes no sense, is illegal, and yes, I do believe un-ethical.
FWIW, I didn't say it made sense, only that some folk who feel that strongly about brookies do. Personally, I don't discriminate. I let all fish go after I catch them, even brookies.

You can't make me believe you can't find someone to take tasty brookies off your hands.
You're a big boy and can certainly believe what you want. But if you fish with me, I not only won't keep brookies, I sure as heck won't give them to you [just kidding!]

K
 

scottr

Active Member
#30
To provide a different perspective on the ethical (not legal) comments replace the word "brook trout" with "northern pike minnow". How is throwing a 5" pike minnow on the bank any different than a 5" brook trout? What about a 5" lake trout on the shore of Yellowstone Lake?
 

Latest posts