Bigger fish / Fewer fish

Maurice

Maurice

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
7,560
Location
York, Pennsyltucky
Hey, this got me thinking....nevermind the fact that the fish may or may not be bigger...there are however fewer of them. So, if they ARE bigger as they say, (we will give the F&BC the benefit of the doubt.) Lets push to have the minimum size be 9" for all trout caught in PA. This could be a great first step for wild trout. Then we could push for 2 fish on unstocked stream sections and wild trout streams not under special regs.

What do you guys think?
 
i generally feel the creel limit is too high. if people are going to take fish make the limit lower and keep the fish around longer.
 
I'm on board Maurice. Up the minimum size to 8 or 9 inches and drop the daily limit to 2 or 3 fish per day outside approved trout waters.

I guess the only problem is people arguing that they caught some of their fish on approved waters before they came to the wild trout water. Could actually be problematic where there are unstocked tributaries or sections of streams adjacent to stocked sections.

There would be no problem with the size change though. I'm all for it. Heck, most of the brookies I'm aware of would be fully protected by a 9 inch limit.
 
Most 7 inch fish are only kept on the stringer for a few hours before they are released in favor of a bigger one anyway. :-(
 
It works for me, I have always though that the limit on wild trout was too small and too many. I'll bet the first all the brookies in our streams would be at least 9 inches.
 
Realistically, how many names do you think we could get on petitions expressing support for reduction of the creel limit and raising the minimum size requirement on wild trout waters? I am assuming that everyone here will make an effort to collect names from other license holders and will distribute blank petitions to the fishing acquaintances and fellow TU, Sprotsmen's Club, Conservation Group, Watershed Org. Members.

Anyone have a guess? Anyone want to try?

I'll draft one up and distribute it as a Microsoft Word document if anyone thinks it will make a difference. Circulate it all season long and then collect it and send it in to PFBC in the Fall. Any interest, or is it a waste of time?
 
a lot! i would do it :-D
 
Realistically, how many names do you think we could get on petitions expressing support for reduction of the creel limit and raising the minimum size requirement on wild trout waters?
Click to expand...

I don't think you'll get the creel limit lowered for a looooong time. They just lowered it a few years ago.

However, even the guys who keep fish to take home probably wouldn't mind a size increase to 9". If its true that the majority wanted bigger but less fish stocked...then they want to take home bigger fish. I bet you could get a lot of signatures for a minimum size to 9 inches.

What I personally think would be more effective is 2 trout limit and 9" minimum on special regs, class-A, wilderness...anything that isn't defined already by its designation such as trophy or catch and release.
 
count me in. who ever drafts the petition, please e-mail it to me. I'll take it fishing with me. I frequent some heavily fished special reg. streams, so i will take it with me and get guys to sign
 
I'd give it a try. A suggestion to everyone would be to drop off a copies to be signed at your local fly shop. I would guess many fisherman that stop in would sign it.
 
Here's a quick draft:

CLICK TO OPEN "MS WORD" DOCUMENT -- RIGHT-CLICK TO DOWNLOAD AND SAVE

In order for something like this to have even a remote chance of effecting PFBC policy, the language of the petition must be uniform. If you can't open the document, don't want to, or just for easy reference, this is the language I chose:

This Petition expresses the preference and recommendations of the anglers identified below regarding regulations on Commonwealth of Pennsylvania streams and rivers that support natural reproduction of trout of Class C biomass or greater, regardless of whether such waterway is stocked by The Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission (PFBC) or Non-governmental groups or persons. The preferences expressed apply only to streams that are not presently regulated more restrictively.

The undersigned recommend that PFBC adopt regulations requiring identification of such streams as Wild Trout Waters and that, in addition to regulations regarding seasons, such waters be regulated as follows:

Daily Possession Limit: Not more than 2 trout
Minimum Length: Not less than 9 inches


Suggestions, changes, comments?
 
I'm all for it.

The only suggestion I have is to change the county of residence column to State/County. Very minor but I'd imagine there's a lot of us around the border that fish in PA too.
 
I think the reason that he used county is that PA's representatives really only care what their constituents think. Kind of like back when we were trying to get Jubileir to stop blocking the commissioner hiring. If you didn't live in his district, he could have really cared less what you thought. However from the standpoint that fishing IS tourism...I do think the PFBC should listen to those who come here to fish too.
 
Seems logical...which will certainly be a problem :-(
Coughlin
 
I'll write whoever as will my friends who travel regularly to PA to fish.

Personally, I'd go for 3 fish 9" or greater any stream regardless of biomass. I think I could get some of my friends, even the bait fisherman amongst them, to go along with that one.

To me a fish isn't worth filleting, stocked or wild, until it reaches 12". We have a 2 fish 12" or over reg for our stocked streams here in Ohio.
 
JackM wrote:
Here's a quick draft:

CLICK TO OPEN "MS WORD" DOCUMENT -- RIGHT-CLICK TO DOWNLOAD AND SAVE

In order for something like this to have even a remote chance of effecting PFBC policy, the language of the petition must be uniform. If you can't open the document, don't want to, or just for easy reference, this is the language I chose:

This Petition expresses the preference and recommendations of the anglers identified below regarding regulations on Commonwealth of Pennsylvania streams and rivers that support natural reproduction of trout of Class C biomass or greater, regardless of whether such waterway is stocked by The Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission (PFBC) or Non-governmental groups or persons. The preferences expressed apply only to streams that are not presently regulated more restrictively.

The undersigned recommend that PFBC adopt regulations requiring identification of such streams as Wild Trout Waters and that, in addition to regulations regarding seasons, such waters be regulated as follows:

Daily Possession Limit: Not more than 2 trout
Minimum Length: Not less than 9 inches


Suggestions, changes, comments?
Click to expand...

Jack and all,

I see it as a fantasy the way it is written. Very complicated to implement and regulate. We just got through the simplification of the regulations. This would blow up in their face. And I believe you would have a very, very hard time convincing others not "in the know" about wild trout to sign something they don't uinderstand very well.

I believe my original statement "Increasing the minimum size to 9" is enough for a start. This would protect wild trout for one full growing season longer. Furthermore, explaining that with the larger trout stocked by the commission, their ability to catch their limit would be the same. The benefit being the protection of wild trout up to 9" in length.

I think the draft is unattainable...a smaller more reasonable step would be easier to accomplish.

My .02

Maurice
 
If PFBC is stocking trout smaller than 9 inches into creeks, they aren't going to be willing to set the limit at 9" where it will waste fish. My thinking on the "Class C and above" limitation was that these waters are one's that can hold over trout and therefore, the trout under 9" aren't going to be wasted. The marginal waters that are stocked-- and I'm betting this would be the majority of stocked waters-- can't hold over fish.

If we want to take baby steps and simplify, I would suggest that we propose the regulation change for just Class A waters, or for Class A and other non-ATWs with natural reproduction.
 
That train already left the station. It was in part pressure from individuals who most likely would support such a petition that resulted in the intensive effort and substantial expence of conducting the statewide wild trout creel survey. There is nothing in the results of that survey that even remotely suggests the need for more conservative wild trout regulations on a statewide basis. Do you really think that after spending very substantial money for the study that the results would be ignored?

While I have seen critiques of the study written on boards by anglers, the most stinging criticisms that I remember were also completely inaccurate. First, sampling did occur on opening day and it is unclear to my why anyone who read the report would think that it had not. Second, a sub-sample of the major (most well known) streams, such as Penns, Spring, Fishing, and Little J did occur. Again, all that had to be done by readers was to scan the list of streams that were studied as part of the random sample of Pa.'s wild trout streams.

Harvest rates of 5 per km and 4 per km of brook trout from wide and narrow streams, respectively, and harvest rates of 3 and 0 brown trout per km on wide and narrow streams, respectively, is hardly a call for more conservative statewide regs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top