How to fish the Pit river in the higher flows - Cal-Trout

[Bill Kiene semi-retired]

They ruined my favorite trout stream.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-je2ioZBvk

[Jeff F]

I think "ruined" is the wrong term here. To me, "ruined" means they damaged the fishery. Trust me......that fishery is fine. No shortage of fish or bugs. The fishery is probably more healthy with the higher flows.

On the other hand, yes.......the higher flows make it more difficult to wade and have probably resulted in lots of people not fishing there anymore. I'm definitely no fan of PG&E. I think there could be a compromise on the flows of the river. You know those angler survey cards they have on the river? I can pretty much guarantee that every single one of them has said "the flows are too high". Does PG&E give a rat's ass? Of course not.

I think a good compromise would be a drop in flows on #3 to 300cfs, #4 to350cfs, and #5 to 350cfs.

[JasonB]

I’m happy with more water for the fish. I would not want to see less flow personally. It’s a challenging river for sure, but I’ll take it as it is. I think the flow on 4 is great, 3 would be ok with a touch more still (I liked fishing it at 350 and 375cfs), 5 fishes well with a bit broader flow window than other reaches imo. I have changed my own strategies a lot when I fish there, mostly I just focus on really working smaller pieces of water instead of trying to cover large ranges of the stream. There are so many fish it’s not really necessary to cover that much distance anyway, and it does help reduce the cuts, scrapes, and bruises I always come home with.

Either way, I’ll adapt to whatever is best for the fish. Eventually, I have no doubt, this river will becomes too physically taxing for me to fish and I’ll have to let it go on to the next generation of anglers. I hope they have as high quality of fishing as I’ve been lucky enough to experience there.

[Fishtopher]

I think "ruined" is the wrong term here. To me, "ruined" means they damaged the fishery. Trust me......that fishery is fine. No shortage of fish or bugs. The fishery is probably more healthy with the higher flows.

On the other hand, yes.......the higher flows make it more difficult to wade and have probably resulted in lots of people not fishing there anymore. I'm definitely no fan of PG&E. I think there could be a compromise on the flows of the river. You know those angler survey cards they have on the river? I can pretty much guarantee that every single one of them has said "the flows are too high". Does PG&E give a rat's ass? Of course not.

I think a good compromise would be a drop in flows on #3 to 300cfs, #4 to350cfs, and #5 to 350cfs.

There was compromise when the FERC relicensing for the Pit and McCloud occurred back in 2011. This compromise involved groups such as CalTrout, Trout Unlimited, and American Whitewater, among others. TU and CalTrout have admitted that they got higher flows than they would have liked, but the higher flows should equal more fish, which it seems it has.

[Jeff F]

Well said. There will be a day when I say "This is the last time I will ever fish this river". That will be a sad day indeed.

[Jeff F]

There was compromise when the FERC relicensing for the Pit and McCloud occurred back in 2011. This compromise involved groups such as CalTrout, Trout Unlimited, and American Whitewater, among others. TU and CalTrout have admitted that they got higher flows than they would have liked, but the higher flows should equal more fish, which it seems it has.

Yes, but if I recall there was a range of flows within that compromise. A range has a minimum flow. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the minimum flow on #3 was 250cfs or similar. I have yet to see any flows below 320cfs since the relicensing.

Anything around or below 400cfs is fine with me though since i'm still young enough to be an aggressive wader. But I can see where Bill is coming from. You don't see too many older folks on the river anymore.

I do remember back before the new regime when the minimum flow was like 150cfs. The river did get pretty warm in August on #4 and #5. Seems like the new regime has helped with water temps.

[pgw]

Any 9'-10' rod, overlined by at least one line size (maybe two) because you make really short casts with several heavy nymphs.

Then there's the necessary knee pads and soccer shin pads...have fun.

[Fishtopher]

Yes, but if I recall there was a range of flows within that compromise. A range has a minimum flow. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the minimum flow on #3 was 250cfs or similar. I have yet to see any flows below 320cfs since the relicensing.

Anything around or below 400cfs is fine with me though.

Sorry got the dates mixed up with the Pit 6,7 relicensing which occurred in 2011. The Pit 3, 4, 5 license was issued in 2007.

I found this document (https://www.hydroreform.org/sites/default/files/Pit%203-4-5%20license%20summary.pdf) which gives a summary of the license. This includes minimum flows for the respective reaches. There is a minimum flow of 280 cfs on Pit 3 from September through November, but otherwise its higher.

For anyone who hasn't been to the Pit in the last several years, the flood of 2017? did wonders on clearing out some of the overgrown vegetation. There's actual gravel bars to walk on to now, at least on the lower reaches.

[WLREDBAND]

Minimum flows are based on the season. For Pit #3: Summer-300, Fall-280, Winter-300-350 (with higher exceptions for temporary spill regimes)-(remember these are minimums). The old flow minimum was 150. Before any one is tossing out the term "ruined", they really should talk with biologists who are monitoring the fish populations and temperatures as a result of the new flow regime. Populations have skyrocketed under the new higher flows, and high temperature has decreased markedly in some reaches. Doesn't meet my requirement for "ruined". I fully support the higher flow regime even if it means I can't fish it like I used to. And for the record, PGE had nothing to do with the increase in flows, it was mandated and controlled by the CA SWRCB as part of the Water Quality Certification required by FERC. PGE would have been happy with lower flows because they make more money at lower flows.


Yes, but if I recall there was a range of flows within that compromise. A range has a minimum flow. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the minimum flow on #3 was 250cfs or similar. I have yet to see any flows below 320cfs since the relicensing.

Anything around or below 400cfs is fine with me though since i'm still young enough to be an aggressive wader. But I can see where Bill is coming from. You don't see too many older folks on the river anymore.

I do remember back before the new regime when the minimum flow was like 150cfs. The river did get pretty warm in August on #4 and #5. Seems like the new regime has helped with water temps.

[Jeff F]

Minimum flows are based on the season. For Pit #3: Summer-300, Fall-280, Winter-300-350 (with higher exceptions for temporary spill regimes)-(remember these are minimums). The old flow minimum was 150. Before any one is tossing out the term "ruined", they really should talk with biologists who are monitoring the fish populations and temperatures as a result of the new flow regime. Populations have skyrocketed under the new higher flows, and high temperature has decreased markedly in some reaches. Doesn't meet my requirement for "ruined". I fully support the higher flow regime even if it means I can't fish it like I used to. And for the record, PGE had nothing to do with the increase in flows, it was mandated and controlled by the CA SWRCB as part of the Water Quality Certification required by FERC. PGE would have been happy with lower flows because they make more money at lower flows.

That's good info. Thanks Redband.

Too bad the populations on other FERC rivers, like the NFF aren't "skyrocketing".

[chapmag]

On what part of the Pit are the CalTrout YouTube fishing scenes? I've only been on the Pit a handful of times. Thanks.

[Jeff F]

On what part of the Pit are the CalTrout YouTube fishing scenes? I've only been on the Pit a handful of times. Thanks.

That is the Pit #4 reach. It's mostly hike-in access. A couple parts are near the road, like by the campground.