Keeping Brookies?

Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by 10incher, Jul 22, 2013.

  1. bakerite

    bakerite Active Member

    Here in NE Oregon there is no limit on the # of brook trout you can keep except for a few exceptions. They tend to overpopulate. They also seem to out compete the native redbands in the lakes where both species are present, taking the best parts of the habitat and being fatter. If anyone wants to fill the smoker, come on down!
  2. Daryle Holmstrom

    Daryle Holmstrom retiredfishak

    It feeds the Wolves and Cougars
    scottr likes this.
  3. scottr

    scottr Active Member

    This is interesting. There really isn't a difference. At least when they get thrown on the bank the biomass stays within the watershed.
    10incher likes this.
  4. scottr

    scottr Active Member

    Don't get us started on wolves ;)
  5. 10incher

    10incher Active Member

    I totally agree. I was just pointing out the rules. Plus... I'm just a little too selfish to trade a trout in the pan for it's usefulness as "biomass".
  6. Kent Lufkin

    Kent Lufkin Remember when you could remember everything?

    Folks toss spawned-out salmon carcasses on the bank to enrich the riparian ecosystem . . .

  7. 10incher

    10incher Active Member

    Yes, but I don't like the way those taste!
  8. scottr

    scottr Active Member

    You just need to put them in the smoker
    10incher likes this.
  9. 10incher

    10incher Active Member

    Good idea. On the other hand, you could put toads in a smoker and I'd probably like them.
  10. Daryle Holmstrom

    Daryle Holmstrom retiredfishak

    Actually Bullfrogs are very good smoked and you can catch them on fly gear
    Gary Knowels likes this.
  11. Smalma

    Smalma Active Member

    Interesting discussion.

    Should it be expanded to those pretty west-slope cutthroat that are exotics in many Washington streams and lakes or rainbows and browns on those blue ribbon Montana rivers?

    Richard Olmstead and Kent Lufkin like this.
  12. Bonefish Jack

    Bonefish Jack Strictly FF

    I am not so sure about this. Several years ago, I had an e-mail exchange with the regional fish biologist asking if the 10" size limit also applied to Brook Trout in the SF. He assured me that the 10" limit applied to all trout (and char) in the SF. I thought that was kinda weird, but I had my answer.

    Now, the regs may have changed since then, but that is what I was told ... Might be worth another e-mail ...
  13. Chris Selvar

    Chris Selvar Member

    shame on me but I caught a Brookie out of the SF sno two weekends ago that was easily 12inches probably closer to 14, and let it go... I have a picture of it on my camera that I will try posting when I get home
    10incher likes this.
  14. 10incher

    10incher Active Member

    In the seven years I've been here it seems like the WDFW "refines" definitions and wording in the regs to clarify the same rules each year. But I can assure you that as it reads this year EBT (eastern brook trout) are NOT part of the "trout" definition and therefor NOT subject to the minimum size for "trout". They would fall under "Other Game Fish" which is "Statewide min size/daily limit". And for EBT (eastern brook trout) that is five of any size. To be clear the trout limit would be five with no more than two being CT or RB of ten inches or more.
  15. Chris Bellows

    Chris Bellows The Thought Train

    wdfw game wardens on streams with brookies....


    you're more likely to win the powerball lottery.
  16. 10incher

    10incher Active Member

    If I caught a 13" brookie I would have a hard time bonking it and depriving other fishermen of the pleasure. Very forgivable IMHO.
  17. 10incher

    10incher Active Member

    I was talking about the guy your going to try debating with when you show up to arbitrate your citation. Not the guy that's going to give you the citation.
  18. 10incher

    10incher Active Member

    Re reading the rules I think Jack may be on to something. Even though EBT are subtext, they ARE listed under TROUT. So I think the 10" minimum for the Snoqualmie may well apply. One contention I have is that dollies are also subtext under TROUT. And I'm pretty sure keeping a dolly under 20" could get you a citation even in waters where they aren't singled out from TROUT. Just sayin' Maybe we do need some clarity on this.
    Bonefish Jack likes this.
  19. triploidjunkie

    triploidjunkie Active Member

    No, it was right the first time. Maybe native redband, but there weren't native cutthroat here. Many of the streams have falls near the mouth,not allowing redbands to ascend from the Columbia. Until brookies were introduced, those kind of streams here didn't have fish. If I had to choose between a barren stream and brookies, I'll take the brookies. If the brookies are in a lake or stream that allows them to compete with native fish, by all means, remove them. Btw, I'm only referring to the streams in my immediate vicinity. I know cutthroat were native to much of our state.
  20. Brookie_Hunter

    Brookie_Hunter aka Dave Hoover

    That's probably not a good example to use here as that is what you're required to do. All lake trout caught in Yellowstone Lake must be killed. Same for rainbows and brookies in some Yellowstone NP river drainages.