My Hunt For Brookies..

[birchy]

Birchy, we'll be going for some of those hey? Only 3 more days!

 

Oh yeeeeah!

[mountainx]

Hit the park Birchy.

 

There's some great Brookie fishing in the Banff Park.

 

Try Mud Lake for starters. It's a short hike, about 15 minutes and it's loaded with Brookies like the one in the video. There's Brookies in Mud that are twice that size.

 

Mud is one of many lakes in the Park that hold decent Brook Trout. The best part is that there are Cutthtoat and Rainbows to be had as well.

 

I've been to Mud Lake a number of times and there is has always been canoes at the lake for use too. They were still there last summer, so you don't even need to hike in your boat.

 

You can also cast from shore if you want.

 

Island Lake on the Alberta - BC border used to have really big Brookies in it, but I don't know anymore. My cousin caught an 8 pounder out of there a few years ago. I know it gets pounded in the winter and I'm sure not many of those caught get released.

 

Lastly, look for beaver ponds that get Brookies stocked in them. The East and West Stoney creek beaver ponds usually have some nice 14 to 16 inch fatties to be caught.

Hit Birch Lake while you are in the area of the Stoney Creek beaver ponds. It has some nice Brookies too, and the largest colony of Blue Herons in Canada apparently, which is cool.

 

Or, we could all spend the entire summer fishing Elbow lake and keep our limits each time. This way we could thin them out and maybe allow it to become a decent fishery. It has huge potential, but there are just too many fish.

 

 

What Mud lake is that ? the one in Lake Louise or the ine in K-country??

cheers

[OneMoreLastCast]

I'm talking about the one by Lake Louise.

 

I'm also hoping that it is a mistake that it has no fish anymore. Maybe it is the other Mud Lake.

 

I contacted a fairly reliable source on the subject and am waiting for a response on whether or not it still has fish.

 

Fingers are crossed

[mountainx]

I talk to a buddy at the lake yesterday and apparently there still fish in Mud Lake

cheers

[OneMoreLastCast]

Just got told the same from my source. The other Mud Lake might be in trouble and someone got mixed up.

[birchy]

Mud Lake it is boys!! Woooooo!

[McLeod]

Mud Lake it is boys!! Woooooo!

 

 

Just have to wait a couple of weeks for the opening.. Maybe a group get together ?

[Pipestoneflyguy]

Mud lake has fish Birchy - For a number of years a local guy was suspected of cleaning it out along with many other small area lakes (freezer stockin' poacher scum) - he has been gone for two years now so numbers should better this year than they have for quite a while - The on-going local debate is whether Herbert is devoid or not - some believe it is, and some believe that those guys are just not good anglers LOL. I haven't bothered fishing it in over ten years but a few of us yokels have decided to put the issue to rest this summer. (there was an alkaline rumour going around so I read the ph from a few spots and found nothing unusual) Its right next to the road so its kind of left to the the chuck and splash crowd.

 

Birchy, if your gonna pick up a parks license let me know with a pm when your coming, you seem like a fun guy and there is definetly some options other than mud nearby (depending on when you come, sometimes a few xtra clicks are all that stands between a good day and a stellar day). You'll find many other small deep alpine lakes in the area that have cutty pops but the biggies never seem to break the 6 - 8 inch range, its because they are supporting Brookie pops that never really come up to the surface. They can be caught if your good at searching depths.

 

Wardens hate the Brookies (invaisive non-native) and they encourage killing your limit so I occasionlly keep em for a dinner, always a treat after a long day out.

[kungfool]

Mud is one of many lakes in the Park that hold decent Brook Trout.

 

Is this lake in Banff National Park? Did some googleing and saw a number of mud lakes in Alberta. Not surprised by the name .

[McLeod]

Mud lake has fish Birchy - For a number of years a local guy was suspected of cleaning it out along with many other small area lakes (freezer stockin' poacher scum) - he has been gone for two years now so numbers should better this year than they have for quite a while - The on-going local debate is whether Herbert is devoid or not - some believe it is, and some believe that those guys are just not good anglers LOL. I haven't bothered fishing it in over ten years but a few of us yokels have decided to put the issue to rest this summer. (there was an alkaline rumour going around so I read the ph from a few spots and found nothing unusual) Its right next to the road so its kind of left to the the chuck and splash crowd.

 

Birchy, if your gonna pick up a parks license let me know with a pm when your coming, you seem like a fun guy and there is definetly some options other than mud nearby (depending on when you come, sometimes a few xtra clicks are all that stands between a good day and a stellar day). You'll find many other small deep alpine lakes in the area that have cutty pops but the biggies never seem to break the 6 - 8 inch range, its because they are supporting Brookie pops that never really come up to the surface. They can be caught if your good at searching depths.

 

Wardens hate the Brookies (invaisive non-native) and they encourage killing your limit so I occasionlly keep em for a dinner, always a treat after a long day out.

 

Pipestoneflyguy..Would you mind if I tag along? I can bring the snacks.

 

Wardens might hate the Brookies but Parks Canada was quite happy to use a picture of a couple of kids holding Brookies

on their website. It's time we moved ahead and treat the brookies as native. As the website states without stocking most of these lakes would have been void of fish so even the Cuts are not really native. Nice write on the history of stocking.

[birchy]

You're joking right?

 

No.. not joking. But I've since found it in the Alberta Fishing Guide. Biggest brookies in the province... according to the guide anyways.

 

I'm hitting it up for sure.

[Taco]

It's time we moved ahead and treat the brookies as native.

 

You got to be frickin' jokin'... Right??

[Brownstone]

You got to be frickin' jokin'... Right??

 

 

What's wrong with Brookies?.. IMO - they are a great game fish, they are the best looking trout, and can grow to be huge in the right conditions..Brookies are not native to Alberta because it's so high up..these fish came from the east where in most places they live at or not more than 200 m above sea level, put them @ +2000M above SL and they only thrive in the best of conditions..and any one who has ever eaten them will tell you..hands down the best tasting trout out there..well maybe close second to sea run...Brookies rock!!!

 

and if you want to bash stocked trout...then the Athabasca is the only system in Alberta with "native" Rainbows..the most popular fish in AB...

[Taco]

What's wrong with Brookies?.. IMO - they are a great game fish, they are the best looking trout, and can grow to be huge in the right conditions..Brookies are not native to Alberta because it's so high up..these fish came from the east where in most places they live at or not more than 200 m above sea level, put them @ +2000M above SL and they only thrive in the best of conditions..and any one who has ever eaten them will tell you..hands down the best tasting trout out there..well maybe close second to sea run...Brookies rock!!!

 

and if you want to bash stocked trout...then the Athabasca is the only system in Alberta with "native" Rainbows..the most popular fish in AB...

 

Yup brookies are a helluva fish alright.. a hoot to catch, pretty to look at, and the 2nd best tasting freshwater gamefish after 'eyes IMO. MOF I tryin' to plan a arctic fly-in for brookies and char.. not quite sure if it can be done in a single trip.... it'll be my youngest son's grad present...........

 

BUT here in the West.. brookies really can be considered nothing more than a aquatic version of english house sparrows or starlings.. they seem to have a hasty habit of completely takin' over their available habitat.... probably one of the major reasons why Westslope Cutthroat Trout currently occupies less than 1% of their historic range in the Bow River sub basin..... plus the little bastards like to crossbreed with the endangered bull trout In reality Alberta should have a 10-20 fish daily limit on brookies like Montana, Wyoming and Idaho... helps keep them damn water rats in check.... ala TU's Qirck Ck project.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Oh Yeah... don't get me started on RBTR.. they ain't a lot better in reality

 

:)

[snakeman]

Taco, do you feel they should be completely extirpated from the province, or just greatly reduced in population? And even if we eliminated brookies from systems like the Elbow River, what chance would bullies and cutts have of making a fully recovery?

[Glenbow]

I think Brookies are a great fish, and of course, they are a trout (yaya, char). Maybe if they were only in some lakes it would satisfy poeple's wish to catch them, and satisfy the other side that doesn't want them in the rivers & cross-breeding or out-competing other trout etc. I often wonder why there is a 2 Brookie limit on some rivers & streams, when there is a 0 limit on other trout. It seems to indicate that it is desired to thin the population, but not remove it.

[Taco]

Taco, do you feel they should be completely extirpated from the province, or just greatly reduced in population? And even if we eliminated brookies from systems like the Elbow River, what chance would bullies and cutts have of making a fully recovery?

 

Compete eradication is an unrealistic goal IMO but Qirck Ck has shown that control via harvesting can work to an extent...reduce the number of brookies in a system and the cutts and bulls will expand into the vacated niches. Remember, brookies taste good but two of them little dinks ain't much of a meal.

 

[fishpro]

I once spoke with a biologist about why the limit is only two for the brook trout in places where they are causing so much trouble, and he told me that it has to do with people's ability to identify the trout. Not only do people have difficulty differentiating between brookies and bulls, but a lot of anglers can't tell the difference between brookies and cutts. The problem with increasing the limit is that it would increase the chances of people keeping the fish that the regulations are trying to protect.

 

One example I was given about the inability to identify trout was when Fish and Wildlife was considering the idea of implementing a fish ID test in order to get your license or at least a special harvesting license to help clear out invasive species. As an example, they gave all wardens in the Alberta a test that covered all the salmonids in Alberta. Not one of the wardens was able to correctly identify all of the fish on the test. An additional problem with trying to implement this test is that no where in North America requires you to write an exam to get a fishing license, therefore it would be very difficult to pass through government.

[fishpro]

Taco, in regards to the trip you are interested in, I do know of a place that you could go to for both of those species. This summer I am going to Minipi Camps in Labrador which has very good fishing for both Brookies and Char. The brookies are good all summer and the best char fishing is in Late August and into September. It is mostly a a brook trout fishery but the char are in there. Check out www.minipicamps.com for more info.

[Brownstone]

I think Brookies are a great fish, and of course, they are a trout (yaya, char). Maybe if they were only in some lakes it would satisfy poeple's wish to catch them, and satisfy the other side that doesn't want them in the rivers & cross-breeding or out-competing other trout etc. I often wonder why there is a 2 Brookie limit on some rivers & streams, when there is a 0 limit on other trout. It seems to indicate that it is desired to thin the population, but not remove it.

 

 

 

Trout ya..Techniqually, Brookies, Bulls, Dolly Varden and Lakers are all Char..but nobody seems to regard to them as this..I think the reason for the 2 Brookie limit is to thin them indeed, mainly because of the hardiness of the fish, it can seem to survive better than other species...

[Taco]

I once spoke with a biologist about why the limit is only two for the brook trout in places where they are causing so much trouble, and he told me that it has to do with people's ability to identify the trout. Not only do people have difficulty differentiating between brookies and bulls, but a lot of anglers can't tell the difference between brookies and cutts. The problem with increasing the limit is that it would increase the chances of people keeping the fish that the regulations are trying to protect.

 

One example I was given about the inability to identify trout was when Fish and Wildlife was considering the idea of implementing a fish ID test in order to get your license or at least a special harvesting license to help clear out invasive species. As an example, they gave all wardens in the Alberta a test that covered all the salmonids in Alberta. Not one of the wardens was able to correctly identify all of the fish on the test. An additional problem with trying to implement this test is that no where in North America requires you to write an exam to get a fishing license, therefore it would be very difficult to pass through government.

 

In reality, that's nothing more than an enforcement issue and a change of mindset ... a few $2500 fines for harvesting an endangered species would soon have people bonein' up on IDin' skills and pressure from the electorate would soon change mindset of those votewhores we call MLAs and MPs. What I do have a lot of problem with is an non-indigenous introduced species being held in the same esteem as species that have been here since the last Ice Age by the general fishing populace.

 

Oh well, it's all cool

[Glenbow]

I know what you mean Taco, but most places we fish are stocked (or were) with the species we angle for, whether Bulls, Browns (not native) Bows or Cutts. If they weren't, we'd all be whitefish specialists for the most part. Anyhow, that's why I thought that lakes for Brookies might be an option.

[Taco]

I know what you mean Taco, but most places we fish are stocked (or were) with the species we angle for, whether Bulls, Browns (not native) Bows or Cutts. If they weren't, we'd all be whitefish specialists for the most part. Anyhow, that's why I thought that lakes for Brookies might be an option.

 

*hit Glenbow, in most places it's too late.. lets just manage and enhance what's there (ie. lower Bow) but in a few places we can halt and reverse the slide(ala.Qirck Ck). Westslopes and bulls are a helluva lot tougher than people give them credit for and can rebuild themselves if we just create some room. B)

[McLeod]

Brook Trout in some NP lakes are of the Coaster variety..They should be maintained as this is an important genetic source if ever needed.

[Pipestoneflyguy]

Interesting discussion for sure - I could go on for hours with practical pros and cons but for now its nice to see folks thinking through the angles anyway.

 

I sent an email to the LLYK Chief Park Warden two years ago posing a difficult question - (considering the Parks mandate which is to preserve the "naturally" occuring environment) - At which point does something un-naturally introduced to the park environment become a park asset as a result of its historical and/or cultural value ?

 

For example - it is illegal to remove artifacts (early CP stirling silver plates, forks etc etc) from the old buried dumpsite behind the Banff Springs hotel because those items existence is interpreted as being of cultural and historical value, irregardless of the fact there is nothing natural about how they were introduced to the Park.

 

Can the same argument be posed regarding Brookies - what quantifyers would be applied to measure the fishes historical and cultural value to the Park ? At which point does it's cultural and historical signifigance outweigh the fact it was un-naturally introduced in terms of it's value assesment ? (is it a measure of potential impact on naturally existing elements that defines it's status ?)

 

Why is a car driven by a Park Warden in the 30's that was left abandoned considered trash and subject to removal from the Park, meanwhile the cabin it is parked beside is protected from tampering or removal under threat of criminal prosecution, despite also being introduced (built) in the 30's

 

Anyway it is questions like these that befuddle the "powers that be" which is likely why the keep two fish rule for brookies and other non-native is such a "middle of the road" wishy-washy position for the Park to take. The solution must be proceeded by the resolution of the cultural vs natural question which is very hard to define in an organization which has a mandate which is somewhat self contradictory. The mandate - "To protect the natural environment vs., for the enjoyment of Canadians" is in itself an enigma. makes for good fireside chat though.

 

When you consider one of the Park's recent inititives, which is a system-wide eradication using poisoning to recreate a truly natural area for purposes like examining the effect of global warming and studying that water system in its truly natural state, lends itself to a more proactive approach, the debate continues, but with real consequences in the balance. Still haven't figured where I sit on this one, luckily I am nothing more than an interested observer, so the burden of these decisions rest with experts not us (luckily the Park is big into public forums and collecting imput so if I did have a formed opinion I know it would at minimum be heard by the powers that be)