# Rainbows In Mad



## Utard (Dec 10, 2006)

Spent Monday afternoon on the Mad. Fished for about 4 hours. Caught one small brown and hooked one LARGE fish. It was in a very deep hole not far from an easy access point and hooked a big boy down deep. I was fishing with streamers and hooked into it down stream. I first thought it was carp b/c i've seen carp in there. However, when I got him close enough to see (just before he spit my fly out!  ) I could've sworn it was about an 18-19inch rainbow. Luckily I had my polarized glasses on, but I have always been under the impression that the mad contained browns only. Does the ONR stock it or something??


----------



## Salmonid (Apr 14, 2004)

Always a few straggler rainbows in the Mad that show up from one of the 4 Trout Clubs located on the Mad Rivers tributaries. Most of the time they are smaller guys but in the lower reaches, we see a few of the bigger ones like you described. My best was 19" about 7 years ago. You are correct, the DNR only stocks little browns (5-7") 1 time a year so that way we are very fortunate to have a "Put-Grow-Take" fishery since fish have to be better then 12" to keep. 

Salmonid


----------



## jholbrook (Sep 26, 2006)

Salmonid,

Do you think there is any natural trout reproduction in the Mad or any of the tributaries?


----------



## Salmonid (Apr 14, 2004)

Our Trout Unlimited group has documented "unofficially" that a few of the tribs do at times seem to have some limited natural reproduction but it is very small and could never support the heavily pressured fishing system.
The substrate of the Mad is mostly sand and gravel with a small amount of cobbles and from spawning time ( late Oct-early Nov) until Mid January when eggs would hatch, the river system would need zero floods and that never happens, so the smallest rise in water levels will move enough sand and gravel to bury and smother the eggs which is why the spawn is not successful in the mainstem. A few of the tiny and always completely private tribs do have stable spring fed flows without high fluctuations of water flows and those streams may have a tiny bit of reproduction. ( I know of only 2 tribs and they are not the ones most people think) Just remember that in those tribs, a resident 10" brown would also eat his hatch plus some just to stay alive in those otherwise semi sterile ditch like environments.

Salmonid


----------



## jholbrook (Sep 26, 2006)

Thanks for the answer. If I remember correctly, a couple years back I read that a few people were beginning to think that there was *some* reproduction in the upper reaches of the Mad and a few tributaries - though the ones I'm thinking of are well known and not completely private. I then talked to some fishermen who said, in effect, "the jury is still out." 

Is it possible with continued stream improvements that we will see more successful spawning? There are similar problems in a number of Michigan streams, aren't there?


----------



## Salmonid (Apr 14, 2004)

Yes, Michigan has the same problems. Michigans best brown waters are further inland where the streams are dropping through rock vs on the outer shield where its all sand.

DNR says none anywhere on the Mad but in the last few years we have seen the redds and seen the fry. The two tribs Im talking about are way too small to fish with normal gear. I might add that the EPA on there study confirmed wht appeared to be fry in the streams durring there field studies. Of course they could be from the river but unlikely with the size and number of them.

Bottom lie is even if it does happen on the Mainstem, there is not enough to support the fishery. If there was a chance of that natural reproduction that would support a fishery, the state would protect them and really limit the fishing for them so it is a double edged sword.
Salmonid


----------



## jholbrook (Sep 26, 2006)

Salmonid,

Again, thanks again for the reply. Interesting stuff.....at least to me. The Mad has always been a point of fascination - my old man helped build some of the vibert boxes used by one of the fly fishing clubs (the Isaac Walton something or other, I think) to plant brown trout fry. He quit the club and probably hasn't been on the river since the early 80s. I've been bugging him to see the recent stream improvements to gain an appreciation of the quality of the Mad River fishery, which in my opinion has grown even over the past few years. It sounds as though we have knowledgeable individuals such as yourself and TU to thank for it.


----------



## Salmonid (Apr 14, 2004)

The vibert box project, ah yes, before my time but I fish still with several guys who were heavily involved, Bruce Hain, Dennis VanHoose and Howard Abel to name a few, that project was done by the Miami Valley Fly Fishers 
(of which Im heavily involved with since 93) with help from TU back in the mid 70's I believe. That same project also had many half logs put in and I can still show you one that is still in place if you can believe that. but the majority of them all got silted in and never workd very well. With the vibert boxes, it was my understanding that there was only 1 that showed any fry, the one on Cedar Run which makes sense with its constant water supply. (Cedar Run was the last place that stocked brookies were documented as succesfully spawning back in the early 1930's, Pre channelization ) 

We keep on learning as we go as to what has worked and what hasn't on the unique watershed of the Mad in its upper reaches. If you havent figured it out yet, the best success has been with Lunker structures but very few places on the Mainstem will allow this type of structure, next has been opposing log deflectors which scour out deep holes but major floods have limited these structures to about 4-5 years, then there are the alternating log deflectors which seem to work well as they encourage meander within the channel and this adds eddy's and the silt deposit also protects the logs which is why we did so many of them ont eh Watson property. They also have a life expectancy of about 6-7 years and then we have the rock walls which are very labor intensive but are fabulous structures when put in the right spots. These tend to have a life expectancy of about 4 years as the tend to sink in the soft sand/cobble over time and really need to be added to over time to keep up there effectiveness. These are the most common things youll see on the Mad but please do not forget the many buffer strips keeping farming away from the river bank and the multiple log jams TU pays to have removed every year in exchange for landowners to allow fishing on there stretches. Then there is the dealing with DNR to have more fish stocked, as well as being the prominany instigator for the recent regs ( 2 fish over 12") all of which help make the Mad as good now as its ever been, which is all too often, not the standard direction of our inland rivers.

Whoops, sorry for the long rant. Just get carried away when talking about our success on the river! Be sure to check us out at www.tumadmen.org

Salmonid


----------



## ethan-a-thon (Aug 17, 2006)

Just a dumb question here from someone who hasn't fished the mad nearly enough. Why isn't it Catch and release only?


----------



## flytyer (Jan 3, 2005)

Some people like to keep a few trout for a meal and we (Ohio) don't have enough cold water streams to make one C&R only. Also the trout don't reproduce so I think the state considers it put and take.
Maybe Salmonid can chime in on this and give a better explanation.


----------



## Salmonid (Apr 14, 2004)

Correct, becuase of how limited Ohio is in public cold water streams, the state feels it would be a real problem to make a few miles CnR, for starters it has been proven many times that the standard catch mortality for Browns is about 10%, that means if you catch a brown, 10 times, and release him 10 times, its unlikely he will survive. ( this is based on competant releases also) so if the state made a stretch CNR, the pressure would be 10 fold and everyone would catch and release the trout to death. 

Another point is that the state feels the fish are in a "put, grow and take" fishery. This means because ther eis limited if any reproduction, the fishery is entirely dependant on stocking and since taxpayers pay for them, they have a right to them. Flytyer is correct, if they were there on there own,(wild or native) the state would "protect" them with special regs.

The state feels that the spring and Fal stockings of bows in lakes is what they consider the "Quantity" fishery for folks wanting to fill up the freezer while the Mad, Clear Creek, and Clear Fork are considered a "Quality" fishery where a sportsman can catch better fish which is why the regs are 2 fish over 12". State stocks the browns 1 time a year at 5-7" so the fish can not be kept until they have been int he river at least a year giving folks like us a good chance to catch and release them with the hopes he will make it to 12+" before he is caught 10 times. ( see 1st paragraph) 

Also remember that the last DNR survey showed roughly 90 trout better then 9" per mile in the system. Thats not many which is why we strongly suggest CnR, barbless hooks, no live bait, no treble hooks etc. as to protect them, remember the little 6" brownie you carefully release this year may be a gorgeous fish of a lifetime for someone in 3 years!!

Salmonid


----------



## H2O Mellon (Apr 5, 2004)

Salmonid said:


> remember the little 6" brownie you carefully release this year may be a gorgeous fish of a lifetime for someone in 3 years!!


Or a nice Flathead bait for your friends!!!! (Just kidding Mark!)


----------



## sevenx (Apr 21, 2005)

Thanks for all the info and discussion on the issues around the Mad. Very interesting to those of us who do fish c & r. I agree it is a put grow and take fishery but I would like to see further regs such as fly and lure only and single barbless hooks. Mark I am sure this has been discussed in your groups. What has been the general attitude towards these type of regs? Thanks S


----------



## Salmonid (Apr 14, 2004)

we keep pushing for a "Delayed Harvest" opportunity where its strictly CNR from Dec 1 through April 1st above Rt 36. so the meat hunters can fish downstream and still take everything they catch and the sports man can stay upstream. Part of the reason we are pushing for this is because the Winter is when the "other" types of anglers show up to fish the Mad since its the only game in town and when we see the highest amount of poaching, Littering, taking of fish and trespassing because these folks are always walking the fields for everyone to see them.

The state really wants to keep all the inland regs the same for all trout waters so its easier to enforce so while we are still pushing, its unlikely that will change from its present regulations and by limiting to artificials only and Single hooks, prior simillar regs on Macochee creek didnt help the fishing any so becuase its been tried and didnt seem to help, the state will not go that way and if they restrict the water in those ways, the loudest complainers are the meat takers who demand the state stock so they can eat them, they seem to have the DNR's ear much better then the organized groups of sportsman.

Salmonid


----------



## Walter Adkins (May 20, 2004)

Salmonoid, I have not experienced the winter time poaching that you talk about. I fish almost exclusively during the winter now because during the warmer months there is just to much traffic on the river. I can go during the winter and may not see another person all day. I think that the reason that so many people are spotted walking the fields during the winter is that there are not crops to hide them. Most guys are just as lazy during the summer as they are during the winter. 
Snow falling, hot trout, and the water to your self; what more could a guy ask for. I have also caught my biggest trout of all out of the Mad. The only rainbow that I have caught in the Mad. It was only 18" but it was a true football trout. You know the type, as round as a football. It was one of those times that I did wish at least one other person was around to see that thing. I let it go and I hope that it has now grown over 20".


----------



## ethan-a-thon (Aug 17, 2006)

Cool thanks for all the insights, it totally makes sense, when explained that way. Its not a simple as C&R = more fish. But I do like the idea of limiting the meat takers to bellow 36. I'd really like to attend some TU meetings and meet some folks who are into this sort of thing, most of my friends are Smallie junkies on the Darby and Scioto, ( nothing wrong with that) but the trout/fly world doesn't come up all that often.


----------

