The world's best flyfishing site.

Español

Foro en Español
Manual de Lanzado
Sección de Carlos
The Downloads

Trailer... Buy...

Falsecast

Monday: Paul Arden
Tuesday: Harps
Wednesday: Trev
Thursday: Davy Wotton
Friday: Ray Fairweather
Saturday: Viking Lars
Sunday: Will Shaw

Contents... Front Page Fly Casting The Manual Beginners Flytying Articles Reviews Saltwater Stillwater The Flow Carlos Steve Lars Deano Matt Paul Pic of the Day Movies Vortex Fishmail Snapcast Advice CCS Rod Data Glossary FP archive

Last year was a strange year for me - I think they all are, in some respect, but especially because in 2011 I didn't fish for trout and/or grayling one single time! That's a first in at least 15 years. There are good reasons of course!

1. The grayling population collapsed in the winter of 2009/2010 all over the country as I've written about before. Hence I felt it was best not to chase the few that were/are left (things are looking a bit better for the grayling, BTW).

2. Browntrout populations aren't exactly booming either and while there are brownies to be found, they aren't exactly big either.

3. I think I just felt more like fishing for salmon and seatrout - possibly as a result of 1. og 2.

4. Yeah, right!

5. It's strange, but I'm not entirely sure there's a 5 either!

So what's happening to the brown trout? It's a good question. Overall, taking a look at the Danish rivers and streams, I don't think water quality has been as good as it is now in the last 50 years. So that's hardly th reason.

Predators? Definitely, to some extent. The cormorants have taken a huge toll, but that's probably not the entire reason.

Stocking policy? Well, I'm not too sure, but one thing I can say - the salmon have received a lot of attention in order to create a natural population.

The river itself? Well, yes - while water quality is generally good, we still have huge problems with drifting sand (virtually every mile of river in Denmark runs through farmland, which is all drained into the rivers) covering and destroying spawning ground, suffocating flora, depositing in deep bends and so on. With the runs and glides slowly suffocating in sand, baby trout loose the habitat they prefer and there's probably also a lack of hiding places for the larger trout.

But I've been wondering about something else. In the 70'ies, one particular and small river in Denmark housed what I've been told was the best population of big brown trout back then (Kenneth Bostršm from Sweden told me this). Back then, the river had several hatcheries that had a huge environmental impact on the river (water quality was not very good). And the trout didn't have access to the salt - they were in fact forced to remain/become brown trout rather than running to sea.

Another river - Denmark's only "chalk stream", River Villestrup, a lovely, beautiful, clear watered small stream, once had a fine population of brown trout. And some hatcheries and other structures that kept the fish from running to sea. Just a few years ago, most (of not all - not sure) of these hatcheries were bought up and closed and free access to the sea was ensured. And within a season or two, the brown trout were all but gone, and in return, the locals were having great fun catching sea trout in dries!

What I'm thinking is:
1. Does a slightly polluted river provide a better habitat for producing more insects (= more trout food)?

2. If given the choice, do Salmo Trutta just "prefer" to become a sea trout?

Anyone know anything about this of have an opinion? I'd be very interested if there were any studies done or reports that cover this subject!

Have a nice weekend!

Lars

Pic Of Day

SL Promotions

www.sexyloops.com
Copyright © 1998-2011