Bigger fish / Fewer fish

[tomgamber]

Maurice wrote:
Tom and Wulff,

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

I agree...I was thinking in a perfect world sense. However, the other fishermen are still going to think they are losing SOMETHING. So only until the hatchery debacle is solved will they be willing to do this, thus get something in return. More fish. This is why, IMO, the PAFBC isn't going to do anything until that is solved. When they can provide what others believe to be an adequate number of fish, then license sales potentially go back up, and thus have more $$$ will they do ANYTHING to broaden the fishing opportunities beyond put and take.

 

[vcregular]

Wulff-Man. I have the most recent study data from Black/Hayes Creek, if you are curious in checking it out...shoot me a PM or email or whatever.

In a nutshell though, Black/Hayes has met and exceeded Class A abundance for many many samplings, but I have yet to have a good day there. Many friends of mine who fish it, also have come up with meager results. Strange.

 

[Chaz]

Excuse me, Maurice, We didn't get through the simplification of trout regulations, they simplification was tabled. There are state around that have more difficult regulations to understand, and the level of education in PA is fairly high, so unless there are a lot of stupid people out there that aren't being counted, these regulations are a no brainer. I'd go as far as saying PFBC should mark all trout that they stock, they do this with miilions salmon in Oregon, so that anglers know the difference between stocked and wild.

 

[TimMurphy]

Dear Chaz,

There is a huge difference between knowing the difference between stocked fish and wild fish and caring about that difference.

There are far too many people in PA who simply don't care if the fish are stocked or wild so long as they get to keep them. I don't see that mentality changing in my lifetime. You can't force people to care, there simply aren't enough law enforcement people or hours in the day to accomplish that task.

Sorry, but that is the way I see it.

Regards,
Tim Murphy

 

[tomgamber]

TimMurphy wrote:
Dear Chaz,

There is a huge difference between knowing the difference between stocked fish and wild fish and caring about that difference.

I'll agree with your statement Tim, but i'm not yet convinced that that is the case. I'm still not sure many of them know the difference. Some, even have posted on this board in the past that they don't believe wild trout even exist which would suggest that, in their eyes, they're all stocked and should be taken. Let me add to that though...whether one can tell the difference or cares to, is only 2/3 of the problem. If they can tell the difference, do they know the consequences of harvesting those wild trout..and how it could negatively affect their own future fishing experience.

 

[Wulff-Man]

Maurice, I understand your “simple” solution, in that it somewhat protects wild trout in a more acceptable manner, and I think it’s a pretty good idea. But we heard the PFBC’s position, that there is no need to protect wild trout by any harvest/size restrictions, basically because studies have shown that harvest isn’t affecting the population of wild trout, so I was responding to that. My problem is that there may be something wrong with the assumptions drawn from the studies. I used an anecdote just to illustrate it, but isn’t it logical and common sensical that just a few harvesters who are a small percentage of the fishing population can severely impact a wild trout stream, and that the creel survey may not account for this because the few harvesters don’t get surveyed proportionately? Did they account for this? There’s probably some complicated way to account for it statistically if the thought and the extra effort was put into it. But I kind of agree with whoever said that this may be something like Exxon doing global warming studies.

I do think that one flaw in your proposal is that there is not much reason for PFBC to implement it, just from a stocked trout harvest perspective, because on the vast majority of stocked streams the fish will die in a couple months anyway, so why prevent people from taking any of the supposedly few 7 to 9 inchers that are stocked, if they want to? They will just go to waste, in the PFBC’s eyes (and in reality, too). And they aren’t going to do it to protect wild trout for the reasons stated above (“That train has left the station”). Sorry to be negative, but that’s the way I see it.

Vcregular, thanks for the info on Black Creek. Looks like a mystery. Maybe those trout are just stealthier than the Valley Creekers. ;-)

Tim, I think that if more people knew about wild trout, and that not all trout in PA come from a white truck, there would be a lot more interest in fishing for them and protecting them, and increasing their numbers. That’s not to say that everybody would feel this way, but I think the public in general would, to a much greater degree than they do now. And I think this is an area where the PFBC and PATU could do a whole lot more, as far as public awareness and appreciation for the great resource we have in PA.

 

[TimMurphy]

Vcregular, thanks for the info on Black Creek. Looks like a mystery. Maybe those trout are just stealthier than the Valley Creekers. ;-)

Tim, I think that if more people knew about wild trout, and that not all trout in PA come from a white truck, there would be a lot more interest in fishing for them and protecting them, and increasing their numbers. That’s not to say that everybody would feel this way, but I think the public in general would, to a much greater degree than they do now. And I think this is an area where the PFBC and PATU could do a whole lot more, as far as public awareness and appreciation for the great resource we have in PA.

Dear Wulff-man,

IM me and I'll tell you what I know about Black Creek.

As far as your point about education being the key I couldn't agree more, but the stock and harvest mentality is sort of a self-fulfilling prophesy. It creates a flase sense of entitlement that will be very difficult to break.

I seem to recall some posts over the winter here on the board where someone, it may have been Chaz or MKern????, remarked that they were fishing a stocked stream with a decent wild trout population and saw several anglers seriously mishandling the "dink" brookies that the Fish Commission "stocked."

Those folks were pretty much abusing the natives in search of some yummy concrete rejects and they didn't really think they were doing much harm. Unfortunately, it doesn't take more than a few people with that mentality to do serious harm to a wild trout population regardless of whether or not they are actually removing the fish for consumption.

Regards,
Tim Murphy

 

[Wulff-Man]

TimMurphy wrote:
IM me and I'll tell you what I know about Black Creek.

Tim, you left me hanging. What do you know about Black Creek? I'm waiting with baited (sic) breath..............

.....Unfortunately, it doesn't take more than a few people with that mentality to do serious harm to a wild trout population ...

That supports my earlier argument about possible problems with the creel survey.

 

[Maurice]

Wulff-Man wrote:

I do think that one flaw in your proposal is that there is not much reason for PFBC to implement it, just from a stocked trout harvest perspective, because on the vast majority of stocked streams the fish will die in a couple months anyway, so why prevent people from taking any of the supposedly few 7 to 9 inchers that are stocked, if they want to? They will just go to waste, in the PFBC’s eyes (and in reality, too). And they aren’t going to do it to protect wild trout for the reasons stated above (“That train has left the station”). Sorry to be negative, but that’s the way I see it.

Tim, I think that if more people knew about wild trout, and that not all trout in PA come from a white truck, there would be a lot more interest in fishing for them and protecting them, and increasing their numbers. That’s not to say that everybody would feel this way, but I think the public in general would, to a much greater degree than they do now. And I think this is an area where the PFBC and PATU could do a whole lot more, as far as public awareness and appreciation for the great resource we have in PA.

Wulff,

I was kidding about your anecdotal experience.

I agree that it owuld be a hard sell. And maybe even "unsellable" but think about it. You have the campaign during the meat of the season. Use the idea of protecting wild trout 7-9" ad a rationale for signing the petition. Even if they don't sign, you still had an audience...which gives the education about wild trout thing some face time.

Lets face it, as long as the stocking truck say "another truckload of family fun". on the back, the message ain't coming from them.

I think they should play carnival music and sell ice cream too...trout shaped popsicles. You heard it here first.

Maurice

 

[Gone4Day]

Wulff-Man wrote:
But I kind of agree with whoever said that this may be something like Exxon doing global warming studies.

That was me that made the comparison to an Exxon global warming study. I hope our friend Mike didn't take offense at my remark, it was just an observation. I really appreciate his contributions to this site, he adds credibility and perspective for us armatures. But I can't help but think that even among professional biologists there is sometimes disagreement about interpretations of data. It happens in nearly all forms of science.

For my 2 cents, I think the wild trout survey was fairly well done, especially when compared to the stocked trout survey. In the former, they surveyed a couple hundred streams, repeatedly, over the entire season. The later, just 30 streams, mostly on opening weekend.

The problem with the wild trout survey was the streams were so diverse and sometimes remote, they needed two people working overtime, in shifts, just to walk some of them twice a day. Some of these poor folks went weeks without seeing a fisherman. And even when they saw one, odds were they couldn't catch him to poll. In all that time, they managed to interview only about 200 anglers. There's no doubt in my mind however, that the easily accessible wild trout streams get hammered while the more remote streams seldom see more then a couple anglers a week. On average, it doesn't look like harvest is a problem. Kind of like wading in an ice cold stream on a hot summer day - your head is burning and your feet are freezing, but it averages out.

Compared to the wild trout survey, getting a statistically significant sample was a piece of cake in the stocked trout survey. In fact, they had to assign several people to a stream because it was not possible for an individual to poll everybody in an eight hour day. Too many anglers. But Tom Gamber quoted an interesting fact from the stocked trout survey: half the streams also contained wild trout. They didn't keep count of wild ones, but even if its a small percentage of the estimated 2.5 million trout harvested, it surely would impact a breading population.

Trout fishing in PA could be better with more restrictive harvest regulation if only on wild streams close to the road and stocked streams that support wild populations.

 

[Wulff-Man]

Gone4Day wrote:
I hope our friend Mike didn't take offense at my remark, it was just an observation. I really appreciate his contributions to this site, he adds credibility and perspective for us amateurs.

I'd like to second that. It must be kind of frustrating because whenever he tries to enlighten us a bit he always takes a beating to some extent by us amateurs who are a lot less educated on the subject. So the fact that he still comes on from time to time is to his credit, and I hope he continues to contribute his knowledge.

We're like football fans (Eagles fans, in particular) who constantly criticize and find fault with what the team is doing. The team gets aggravated because they are the true experts and professionals at the game. But we’re passionate fans who are also immersed in the game, and sometimes we see things that they have a blind spot for (like the need for a running game or an ace receiver!).

Gone4Day wrote:
There's no doubt in my mind however, that the easily accessible wild trout streams get hammered while the more remote streams seldom see more then a couple anglers a week. On average, it doesn't look like harvest is a problem.

Very true.