Bigger fish / Fewer fish

The trout that we in SE Pa. have now seen from four different hatcheries....Huntsdale, Pleasant Gap, Bellefonte, and Benner Springs...have appeared to me to by clearly larger on average. They were larger in that there were more 11 inch fish than in the past from at least three of the four loads, all from different hatcheries, that we saw. The size range was probably the same, however, in that there were 8 inch fish as well as 13-14 inch fish. Keep in mind that the objective is for the grand average size fish stocked in a combination of preseason and inseason stockings to be 11 inches. An average is what it is; it does not mean that all fish will be 11 inches long.
 
I have never surveyed Cooks Run, but a quick check revealed that Cooks Run in sub-subbasin 8A, which may be the stream that you are talking about, was included in the statewide wild trout creel survey. A check of its population data indicated that it supported in 2004 a mixed population of wild brooks and browns, predominated by brooks at the sampling site. Wild trout density was 43 per km (70 per mi).
 
As reported in a previous post for Maurice (copied below) the natural mortality rates of wild trout in Pa. would override the impacts of a higher size limit or lower creel limit, whether the regs would be special regs or new statewide regs. In other words, you would not see a difference in population size structure or abundance on average on a statewide basis with higher size limits and lower creel limits. There may be rare exceptions where this might not be true (some limestoners, as an example), but the data say that attempting to reduce angling mortality from its present level on a statewide basis would not have a statewide effect. If the reason that you are so positive about more conservative regs is strictly a personal value issue, then so be it and just say so, but if it is because you expect to see a biological response (more and larger fish) in the vast majority of streams around the state you are headed for disappointment. A positive response would most likely be unusual. See below.

Re: Mortality =40% #17



Joined:
2006/11/10 8:32
Posts: 22 The average annual total mortality reported by the PFBC at the trout summit was 60 to 65 percent depending upon whether or not one was speaking about freestone or limestone wild trout streams. Total mortality is comprised of two components: angling mortality and natural mortality. It is generally calculated for fish that are age 2 and older. although age 1 fish are sometimes included. Young-of-year fish are not included. Additionally, the statewide wild trout creel survey revealed that the angling mortality component of the average annual total mortality was on average around 4 percent. Given the low angling mortality in general on a statewide basis in wild trout streams, is it any wonder why so few wild trout streams in Pa (except for the major limestoners and a very few freestoners) respond favorably to special regulations designed to increase the abundance and size distribution of the fish? One scientific paper cited in the wild trout creel survey report suggested that an angling mortality rate of 50% is needed to see a favorable response to special regs of the type mentioned above.
 
I catch a lot more brookies between 6 and 7 inches now than I did before the size limit increased from 6 to 7 inches.

I'm sure the law of diminishing returns will be relevant here, so maybe a further increase would not be as noticeable.

The angling mortality rate will be dramatically higher for legal sized fish than for sub-legal. Perhaps 50%? I don't know.
 
Mike wrote:
I have never surveyed Cooks Run, but a quick check revealed that Cooks Run in sub-subbasin 8A, which may be the stream that you are talking about, was included in the statewide wild trout creel survey. A check of its population data indicated that it supported in 2004 a mixed population of wild brooks and browns, predominated by brooks at the sampling site. Wild trout density was 43 per km (70 per mi).
Click to expand...

What does that translate into in terms of what defines a Class A? Ex...40 kg/ha.

Reason I ask is that about 4 years ago it was not stocked. I went there on opening day and caught no less than 40 wild brookies (in the 4 to 12 inch range) from the end of the road near lick run down to the first bridge (the upper portion of what is NOW the stocked area. They used to stock only from the bridge down to Rock run) One year later I came back and there are couches and trailers and 100's of people pounding this fishery. They were keeping 7inch wild brookies along with teh stockies. They also had fires going during a burn ban but thats a whole other story. Anyway, its still a good wild trout stream and it still holds many, many wild fish but not as many as 4 years ago. I'm sure many of them got pushed up stream. I was just wondering if this is an example of giving anglers greater angling opportunities or an example of stocking over healthy wild populations to the detriment of the fishery. Had it been surveyd before they stocked it, I believe your survey would have turned up a greater number of and size class of fish. I'm not busting your balls, i really want to know what you think happened.
 
In Maryland:
Lastly but most important, new in 2007 is the Brook Trout Zero Creel Limit Fishing Area for the Savage River Watershed. Brook trout are Maryland’s only native trout species, and we have lost many of our brook trout populations throughout the state. The Savage River Watershed is their last stronghold in Maryland, however our studies show that brook trout densities have declined in this watershed during the last 20 years, and currently numbers and size of brook trout are reduced in areas of easy to moderate angler access. This new regulation prohibits the harvest of brook trout as well as prohibits the use of bait due to associated high hooking mortality. This regulation serves to improve the brook trout densities and size structures (meaning more larger fish) in their last stronghold in Maryland so future anglers can experience catching and beholding the beauty of this fish.

In Connecticut:
In the link, it states in no uncertain terms that both minimum size and creel limits increase both the average size and number of wild trout.

Does their data and surveys show something different from the PFBC?

http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/fishing/freshwater/troutbroc.pdf

http://www.dnr.state.md.us/fisheries/fishingreport/freshwater.asp
 
Along the same lines of what afishinado said, I think I remember Idaho had several unstocked wild streams where the creel limit went down to 2 fish. Maybe when they get some numbers from the BTE streams they'll expand those regs to more class A's. Of course I think they are stocking those streams too. Cross Fork...Kettle...no?
 
The problem with comparing one state to another without knowing or examining the specifics surrounding each state's decisions leads to a comparison of apples to oranges. You used Connecticut as an example and I followed through with the link. It states that a survey of anglers on 60 streams indicated that angling pressure was heavy and that anglers kept most of the wild and stocked trout that they captured. This is not the case in Pa. and the Wild Trout Stream Creel Survey, a random sample of 200 wild trout streams, verifies what I am telling you. See the report on the PFBC web site. Furthermore, both Md. and CT have high human population densities and much lower numbers of wild trout streams. This alone could result in angling pressure that could diminish the quality of wild trout fisheries. Connecticut has a land mass that is smaller than many of Pennsylvania's individual fisheries management regions and its human population is slightly lower than that of SE Pa.
 
Tomgambler: Regarding your observation on Cooks Run, I really could not comment about the specifics that you cited since I am not familiar with the stream. I can only tell you that if the Cooks Run in sub-subbasin 8A is the one of which you are speaking, the survey work in 2004 was done in an unstocked section. Additionally, all of my previous comments in this thread pertained to unstocked sections of wild trout streams. When stocking is occurring over wild trout angling pressure goes up and that pressure may, in some cases, result in harvest impacts on wild trout abundance and size distribution. Sometimes it happens; other times it doesn't. It depends upon species involved, angling pressure, frequency of stockings, angler success, angler harvest practices, etc.
 
Mike,

Thank you for your response. You are very knowledgeable about, and may even be associated with, the PF&BC. I am glad to have you on this board.

I posted both the MD & CT examples of their approach to wild trout management. From your response, it is my understanding that angler pressure can have a negative effect on both the densities and size structure of wild trout present in any given stream. In PA, according to the recent PFBC survey, angler pressure on wild trout streams is light overall, and the effect on mortality is negligible (+/- 4%), therefore increased size restrictions for harvest and/or reduced creel limits will have little or no effect on the population.

Much has been written about shrinking population of brook trout in the entire northeast region, including the coldwater streams of PA. Loss or degradation of habitat is cited as the primary reason for this decline. What do you suggest can be done by us, as fisherman and conservationists, to halt or slow down this decline? Further, what is, and what can be done by the PF&BC and the PA DEP to lead us in this effort? Should/can more PFBC & DEP funds be allocated to the preservation and restoration of habitat for wild trout?
 
Mike,

Based on your other thread, I went and read the executive summary of "Angler Use, Harvest and Economic Assessment on Wild Trout Streams in
Pennsylvania" here: http://www.fish.state.pa.us/images/fisheries/creel2004_wild.pdf

The 4% mortality rate (from angling) you quoted is for legal sized trout, so I stand corrected.

I'll try to work my way through the 60 page report before I speculate any further.
 
I'm in. I don't keep any of my fish anyway. This could only help wild trout. It's a first step.
 
Afishinado: Thanks for your comment about my contributions to the Board.

You have correctly interpreted my comments about the statewide wild trout population and the vast majority of Pa. wild trout streams. I would add, however, that there are possibly relatively rare (relative to the total number of wild trout streams in Pa) wild trout streams where more conservative regulations, usually referenced as "special regulations," would be beneficial due to the impact of substantial angling pressure and harvest (substantial meaning much higher than the average). I emphasize the word "rare." Special regs have their place, and your fisheries biologists keep them in their "tool boxes," but the results of the statewide wild trout creel survey strongly suggest that cautious and very limited application of these regs would be prudent if the objective is to improve the abundance or size structure of wild trout populations in these uncommonly pressured streams.

It is actually a pleasure to hear someone then steer away from the discussion of regs to the more applicable discussion of habitat improvement. Fortunately, I can inform you that wild brook trout populations are actually improving and expanding in SE Pa. This is primarily because of improvements and increases in mine acid abatement, and natural changes in geological influences on mine discharge quality in Schuylkill Co. However, there are a few other streams in the region where populations (brook or brown) have improved or rebounded in response to completion of construction activities (reduced sedimentation), increased shading due to forest or riparian buffer maturation and reduced sedimentation due to changes in land use, removal of dams that warmed the streams, and probably a few situations that I've missed. There are also some streams where populations have declined.

As for agencies and habitat, DEP has Growing Greener Funds that may be used for stream improvement. Your PFBC SE fisheries manager has steered County Conservation Districts toward work wild trout streams when funding has become available. Additionally, the PFBC has recently hired Habitat Biologists for every region. These individuals are just getting started in their positions, but I anticipate that much more habitat work will be getting done in each region as more grant monies are captured for that purpose. This does not mean that the PFBC Habitat Biologists will be doing the "rock rolling;" rather it is highly likely that they will be working on capturing monies that can be used for that purpose through contracts and grants.

Finding or starting a group that focuses on habitat work in wild trout streams is tough in SE Pa. for obvious reasons. But that is what anglers need to do. However, the Valley Forge Chapter of TU, Tulpehocken TU, Perkiomen TU, and the Schuylkill River Headwaters Association are ones that have done much work on wild trout streams, although not always wild brook trout streams (except for Schuylkill R. Headwaters Assn).
 
Ok, we had a pretty good thing going til Mike came along and punched our card full of holes. :lol:

So back to the original question...Who is for raising the statewide trout size limit to 9"?

For all the reasons stated by Mike, (who is the biologist in Area 6 for the PF&BC) there is no reason to protect wild trout in PA. Infact we need to harvest more of them so they to go to waste. Like half of them. Hey they are dying anyway man....

My problem with that viewpoint (and I fully understand the data, perspective and accompanying regulations.) ...is, the period between opening day and when they shock the streams. What we've learned is very few anglers harvest wild trout. But the trout that are harvested are no longer there. If they are 7-9" fish that are harvested, they are not there in the surveys in the summer either during the surveys. Perhaps incidental mortality would have taken care of them, perhaps not. As stated, the evidence of increased abundance on small wild trout waters is very rare.

So, on the one hand, we have the chance for improvement as being very rare. And we have the harvest rates being very small. Both pieces of evidence produced by the Trout creel survey historic wild trout abundance surveys indicate that everything is OK.

But the question is...OK for who? If we all fished with electrofishing equipment, we'd probably see it the same way. But we don't, so we don't.

What we do see is a handfull of 7-9" brook trout being removed from a stream in April and we know we have no chance of catching them. On some streams it will make a long term difference, most it will not...but who cares about that unless you are a fisheries manager? On streams with wild trout that are stocked, (not class A) we see 7-9" wild browns and sometimes brookies on stringers and the anglers don't even know what they are. They are puny compared to the average sized stocked trout.
They only know they can keep them.

Based on all of the evidence that I've seen...the raising of the size limit would most likely not have a positive impact on a the wild trout fishery. However, the evidence also supports that the numbers of people harvesting wild trout 7-9" long also is small on a statewide basis. (3-5% mortality). The only loser here is the 7-9" fish and the anglers who want to catch them during the spring and summer.

If only a few fish in the 7-9" range are harvested from a small wild stream, and the survey shows none or only a few precent in the summer then that stream is cropped. Maybe not from a statewide standpoint but for the visiting angler and for the streams dynamic it is.

The real question here is: Should we be managing the wild trout streams for harvest or for recreation with allowable harvest?

I am not for C&R on wild trout streams, I believe we can afford some harvest, I just believe that 7''-9" fish are too small to provide the objective of harvest which is consumption. I believe the number of people who would be affected by this increase in size limit would be way below the number of people who would support it.

Lets face it, we fish for enjoyment not consumption, and if we "believe" it will produce a better size distribution, we will enjoy it more. In rare occasions it will. Others will only stay the same. So what? do we want to manage for the ones that stay the same with fewer 7-9" fish?

The F&BC spends the vast majority of OUR money raising trout to be stocked and harvested, now the average trout is bigger...That is what the people wanted. Right? Lets give it to them. And so the size limit should also be bigger, that is all I am saying. The only negative consequence would be the dissappointment of those who harvested the 3-4% of wild trout across the state.

The enjoyment of MORE anglers who would have the opportunity to catch those same fish had they not been removed is the point I am focusing on.

The only reasons such a change would not be practical is if you fish with electrofishing equipment over several years on hundreds of streams at one time and average them all together.

Two weeks til Opening day in SE PA. Are we gonna get it together to see if we can garner enough support to have the size limit changed in the future?
 
I'd be all for it....it would at least be worth looking at to see of the average size of the fish would increase.

Any data on the avergage size caught of DHALO streams vs regular approved water? This might give us some insight....

If the average size goes up, I think this is something the average fisherman could get behind.

And we'd preferentially be protecting a lot of brook trout, IF harvest was a limiting factor on fish size. Big IF there.

Any data on size, not just fish poulation, or biomass?

If PA fisherman want bigger fish.....can we do it through regs and not stocking to some degree?

Besides, the pratical point is that you get very little meat off of a 7-9" fish. Thats why for me personally, when I catch and keep its only stockers over 12". Not worth my bother with smaller fish.
 
Maurice,

The Brook Trout Enhancement Program should provide data on how the size structure of streams changes with no-kill regulations.

I'd like to see that data before pushing for a change.

Just my 2 cents!
 
Albatross:

Here are a few streams - notice not much change.

I would have liked to see some more restrictive tackle requirements in this program, since brookies are prone to high angling mortality when bait is used.
 
Mike wrote:
The problem with comparing one state to another without knowing or examining the specifics surrounding each state's decisions leads to a comparison of apples to oranges. You used Connecticut as an example and I followed through with the link. It states that a survey of anglers on 60 streams indicated that angling pressure was heavy and that anglers kept most of the wild and stocked trout that they captured. This is not the case in Pa.
Click to expand...

Thats because the majority opening day fishermen who get out maybe 1 or 2 times a year sees any brookie below six inches as a native. And ANY fish over 7 inches and something you eat. You ask them, "do you keep the wild fish you catch?"...heck, most of them really don't even know. Especially if they are catching browns that may be wild. If the minimum size were say nine inches, they still wouldn't know...if the creel limit on these wild streams (stocked in addition to...or not) was 2 fish...they still wouldn't know...but they'd kill less of them. Even the guys on this board who fish several dozen times a year, many of those days on wild streams sometimes have trouble telling a wild fish from a holdover, fingerling stocked or even just a well colored stockie. We've posted pics and had discussions and not everyone even agrees on the "Which of these fish are wild?" threads. And this is a point in all this discussion that I think is being understated, to say the least. Its a simple fix...don't stock over wild fish...make all wild streams 9" minimum...2 fish limit.
 
It seems that the PFBC is putting a whole lot of weight on the wild trout creel surveys. I hope the data and the conclusions reflect reality. Now I’m certainly no expert and haven’t read through all the data and results, and I know that there’s a lot to this that I don’t understand, but I just have this nagging question and doubt based on simple reasoning. Maybe too simple. Anyway, I was fishing a wild trout stream in the Poconos (Black Creek) a few Mays ago, and I was disappointed that I wasn’t seeing many fish in this fishy-looking stream. I caught one nice 10” brookie, and didn’t see many more than that the whole day. Now my last name isn’t Nale, and I may not be the best trout fisher in the state, but I do OK. It just so happens that I was approached by a PSU student doing a wild trout creel survey. So he recorded that I caught and released one brook trout. He also told me that he saw one other fly fisherman a ways upstream that day, and he caught and released a few small brown trout. So that’s 0 mortality for that small sample. The thing is, there were many places along this stream where the limbs were full of mono bird nests and a nice assortment of bobbers, so I had been thinking most of the day that my poor fishing was probably due to the stream being heavily fished and harvested earlier in the season. Now if the creel survey wasn’t being done at the time, as far as the PFBC is concerned, there is very little harvest on this stream. Even if they were doing surveys earlier in the season, if there are, say, 20 catch-and-releasers for every harvester, the odds of them being part of the survey are pretty small since they make up only 5% of the fishing population. BUT those few harvesters may be enough to significantly impact a small wild trout stream. Just my $.02.

And I also agree with Tomgamber's simple fix as he stated above. Why the heck not? As I have said before, if so few fishermen harvest wild trout, what's the big deal with limiting the harvest by regulation? You are not negatively affecting many fishermen, but you could be greatly enhancing the fishery (assuming that a few harveters are significantly depleting the resource). On streams where it will not greatly improve the fishery, there's still no harm done.
 
Tom and Wulff,

To heck with the 2 fish limit...make it 9" and that will take care of the two fish limit.

Wulff, your observations on the pocono creek would be dismissed as anecdotal evidence, not measurable.

We cannot look at this as a means of protecting wild trout. That would be a byproduct by its very nature. We have to look at it as a practical application of the "bigger fish syndrome" we are now under. It is only logical that the minimum size be raised if the fish are larger.

If they are not measurable larger to support a 9" min size then they need to say it. And if so they need to substantiate the reasons why. And a handfull of 8" dinks over 4 million don't cut it in my book.

Maurice
 
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