Brook trout (ST) C&R: no added benefit to ST size or abundance

[SlumpBuster]

These aren't empirical studies. I don't think you know what empirical studies are.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Given the catch rates and average trip lengths on Pa.'s wild brook trout streams, the average catch is about 5 fish per trip. Since many or most of these fish are sublegals in any representative 5 fish catch, it is a rare individual, indeed, who is harvesting 5 wild fish.

well, i would like to know who you guys are surveying to determine catch rates on brookie streams? and with that what streams you are surveying on?

i on almost every occassion catch more than 5 wild brook trout per trip. and quite a few legal size fish.
i understand the point that a wild trout fishery has never been destroyed or elimamated by overharvest, but it is only because of all of the sub-legal trout. i have seen where a stream had no-more 7 inch fish left after some heavy harvesters have gone through.

i donot agree that brook trout streams arent easily accessabile. i can name quite a few that come up right beside a road and follow it. or cross under a major road. IN ALMOST EVERYCASE, there are no fish beside the road and up and downstream of the road for a distance. here in sepa i dont know of many out of the way brook trout streams. it seems they are all enroute to a McDonalds :-D

mike i agree that there are studies that disagree with the thought that brook trout populations are not affected by angling. my problems comes from where these studies are preformed. and also how. let me explain.

i would like to see a study done in the sepa region where the angling pressure and the avg. number of anglers is much, much greater. also in these studies how are we monitoring angler harvest. i was fishing a stream in the nepa region that was in the middle of no where. hard to belive someone hiking that brush to do a survey. so are we monitoring easy access streams or hard to access streams? besides i thought no brookie stream was easy to access?

Whether it is creel limits, length limits, seasons, or tackle types, I am not interested in overregulation.

if each watershed is different, and each needs its own study to determine what is best for it, isnt that a already biased comment supporting the majority of harvest anglers. mike i remember you and i had a conversation over the phone about a little stream here in the sepa region. i got wind that you guys where going to do a study on it to see what the population is. i know that stream has a class a population on it and got worried that if you released the findings....over pressure would damage those beautiful fish. you told me based on its location and being that it was in the sepa region, you thought it best to leave it alone.
doesnt that defet everything you have been saying about brook trout mortality? if fishing and harvest doesnt hurt brook trout populations, why not do a study and release the findings? maybe because of its location and proximity to so many anglers? then you should be intersted in stricter regs.....at least in the sepa region. seems like your biased a little. youll tell me one thing over the phone but say another on here. hmmm.

if most anglers arent harvesting wild trout, then why not lower the limit, or increase the size, or make it C&R all together. after all we made DH FFO to C&R FFO for the smae reasons. i have trouble understanding why we cant have half our wild brook trout fishery be under stricter regs.

note that most of my statements on here are just observations. they are not scientific data and i understand that. i just hear so much about this study and that study, but none of it is relative to sepa. sepa has a dense population of fisherman and the least amount of streams. like to see some studies from my area. and iam paying for studies tim, by buying a lisence. do one on sepa streams then i might belive. there is nothing wrong with being biased and standing up for you opinions. that is what this country is based on. if this is wrong, next election vote for the guy u dont like :-D

 

[JackM]

SlumpBuster wrote:
These aren't empirical studies. I don't think you know what empirical studies are.

Well if they are just more speculation, why should I bother reading them? You may have some particular notion of what an empirical study is, but my unlearned understanding is that it is a study based upon observation and perhaps experimentation. Based upon the abstracts I was able to obtain online, these articles seem to be exactly that. So, maybe you are the one who is definitionally challenged.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

this came from the An Amendment to the Pennsylvania Wildlife Action Plan.

Operational Objective 2.5.1. Conduct creel surveys on randomly selected brook trout populations to collect angler use and harvest data on these waters. Combine these data with biological data to make adjustments in regulations, if necessary.

but if your already not interested in changing regs....then you can eliminate this from the action plan. or are we relying on another states data to determine what is best for pa?

 

[ryanh]

Sorry Troutbert,
My smart allek reply was aimed at Slumpbuster. Did not mean to aim it at you.

And while I am on the topic,
Slumpbuster. There are a lot of guys on this board who you could learn a few things from. I am not one of them. As for those scientific journals that you hold to be gospel... I hate to burst your bubble but don't put too much stock into them. Your better off doin your own research and forming your own conclusions.

Little story to prove the point.
I was working and a large bird flew over my head. My boss goes, "thats sure a funny looking turkey." I said "yah cause its a ring neck". Did I mention that my boss was doing post doctoral work in population biology? They are just people like you and me. They can be wrong or have skewed data. Let the debate rage on.

 

[afishinado]

Slumpbsuter wrote:
“Nice points afishinado. But the number of stocked trout should be reduced to allow money to be spent on things that would bentifical to raising trout populations.”

Slumpbuster,

I agree that the amount of dollars allocated to stocking by the PFBC is too high, but fishing license sales fund the commission, and I believe that many P&T fisherman would bail if stocking was cut back significantly. A sharp decline in license sales would dictate that cutbacks would have to be made in worthwhile PFBC programs.


Even the Fish Czar can’t change that.


Sal,

You are the PA king of fly fishing for wild trout in small streams. With the possible exception of Chaz, I don’t know of anyone that logs more hours on these streams. I agree that there are wild trout streams that are impacted by fisherman, especially in the SE region (where I also live). I can relate similar stories. No one can argue that if a high percentage of trout were harvested from a small stream, the population density would decline.

I do have reservations about designating certain streams C&R since special regulations can be a double-edged sword. In my mind the SR would put a bull’s eye on the stream as being a bonanza for trout, and actually increase pressure by fisherman. Also it may increase poaching by those looking for an easy way to fill the freezer.

You are careful not to post the location some of the productive small streams you fish, as well you should. Do you wish to send your list of streams to the PFBC to designate them C&R? Just a thought.

I have resigned as Fish Czar and appointed you Fish King of PA .....what do you propose?

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

! :-D !

PA king of fly fishing for wild trout in small streams! i wounldnt go that far, but it has a nice ring ;-) chaz might start an uprising and then no more sal! :lol:

in all seriousness, i would make brook trout fishing in the sepa region( which would be the same counties as the opener) either, nokill or increase the size limit to 10 inches. then no white signs would be needed. wild brook trout fisheries wouldnt be exposed by those bright white monsters. a no kill regulation would be best in my opinion. if we dont single out the fishery but the species then it wouldnt draw anymore attention to a single fishery. but its just my opinion. although it is the opinion of
PA king of fly fishing for wild trout in small streams

 

[afishinado]

Sal,

I would go along with that proposal, but I’m not sure that there are enough of us to turn the tide. Look at Valley, it’s a quality wild trout stream in the middle of a million people. It became C&R by accident ( a PCB spill). But make no mistake about it, with VFTU and a lot of hard work and dollars by other concerned folks, it would be no more than a big drainage ditch.

BTW, IMO Mike from the PFBC is one of the guys in the white hats. He is the only person from the PFBC that regularly communicates with us, on his own time, to give us info and insights about fish and fishing in PA. Even “the King” should not call him out to give his own personal opinion about any subject. He may completely agree or disagree with PFBC policies, but his job, as a representative of the commission is to relate policy and give information. I expect no more or less from him, and I thank him for all the info. If you want an answer to your questions, e-mail Dr.Austin , and take him to task, that’s part of his job. Just my opinion.

 

[troutbert]

ryanh wrote:
Sorry Troutbert,
My smart allek reply was aimed at Slumpbuster. Did not mean to aim it at you.

Ummm. I'm not quite sure what you're referring to. My last post was in response to Tim Murphy's post.

 

[troutbert]

JackM wrote:

troutbert wrote:
As a fisherman I would prefer that 50% of the fish had NOT been removed, and I think nearly all fishermen would agree.

This, of course reveals your bias, but as a general statement, it is false or at a minimum incomplete. "[N]early all fisherman" would not agree to have 50% of all fish "not removed" by late season if it meant they could not remove any in the early season. In fact, despite the trend toward C&R trout angling, I think the vast majority of stamp buyers in PA are looking to limit out a couple times in April and May and then be done with it altogether for the year.

Here's my original statement:
"Suppose you go to fish a stream in late season. Would you prefer that 50% of the fish had already been removed from the stream? As a fisherman I would prefer that 50% of the fish had NOT been removed, and I think nearly all fishermen would agree."

The typical angler (regardless of whether he's a TUer, flyfisher or harvest oriented or spin or bait or whatever) going out to fish a stream in late season does not say, "Gee I hope some cleaned out half the fish in the crick." No, the typical sane fisherman who goes to a stream hopes there are lots of fish in the creek, and that someone HASN'T cleaned out 50% of the fish.

It's true that there are many anglers who want to harvest a lot of fish. But that doesn't mean they want the stream to have half the fish removed before they get there. What these fisherman want is to take a lot of fish OUT of the creek, and also have a lot of fish IN the creek when they go there to fish. What they want just isn't possible.

But getting back to how all this relates to Thorn's statement. He is saying that it's OK if 50% of the fish are removed. But that's a SUBJECTIVE statement. There is nothing scientific about it. If lots of fish are removed early in the season, up to the Thorn 50 Percent, that means there will be less fish available in mid and late season. Thorn may not care that fishing opportunities are reduced in mid to late season, but many anglers DO care.

So it's Thorn's preferences against other people's preferences. Your preference and my preference are just as valid as Thorn's. His statement is not a scientific one, it's one based on his own personal values. And since the conclusions of the study rest on Thorn's statement, the conclusions regarding management of the fishery aren't scientific either.

 

[Mike]

Sal: I don't recall the conversation about a small brook trout stream in SE Pa. so I can only guess that IF my concern had to do with fishing pressure it was a comment that I made prior learning what we did about angler effort and harvest from the wild trout stream creel survey. We learn all of the time as biologists and our positions on some topics change as a result; otherwise we would not be true to ourselves or those who pay us.

As for wild trout creel surveys in SE Pa., there were 7 or 8 SE Pa streams in the statewide survey, including some wild brook trout streams. So the SE portion of the state was represented. By the way, angler use on those brook trout streams was very low to none during the survey dates.

 

[Mike]

Troutbert said:What these fisherman want is to take a lot of fish OUT of the creek

Mike's response: Apparently not or else they are not very good at it. Read the wild trout creel survey report.

 

[SlumpBuster]

JackM,

First, these studies are not speculation. They have been copied many times and a pattern has been proven. Second, Empirical studies in fisheries involve using an easily obtainable item or thing that allows managers to make an assumption on hard to obtain fishery problem. For instance using the concentration of cholorphyl in a lake to estimate the fishery yield. The studies that I showed you were not like this. They used electoshocking and other techniques to study the fish. The observation is only the begining of the solution. Furthermore, these articles go through a strict peer revision before they can even be published. This is not magic it is science. These guys are showing you that stocked fish can have a major impact on wild ones. It should not be too hard to understand I have not seen you present any information that they do not.

ryanh,

I do not hold these journals to be gospel. I use them to learn from. If we do not learn from what other people have done before us we can never move forward. People have told me that sticking my hand in a fire would burn it. I'm not going to stick my hand in the fire to test to see if they are right i think I will take thier advice. Also I do learn many things from the people on this site, but I will not belive them on such fisheries topics just because they think they are right. They have not had the schooling, they have not worked in the field, and they have not read the amount of material that I have on the subject. If i was inquiring information on how to build something I may consult a engineer to see the best way to do it. Being that he is much more knowledgable on the item I think I would take his advice. I would not call him a liar and say he was full of it just because I may think diffirently.

afishinado,

I agree to drastically cut the number of stocked fish would cause many people to lose intrest in the sport. I do not think that we need to drastically cut the number of fish but to slowly reduce the number. Also we could cut cost greatley by raising his at a much higher density than we already do. This would cut down on the number of hatcheries we need and help to cut cost. Also I think that money would be well spent on programs to inform the public about the importance of wild fish, catch and release, and many other important fishery topics. I think this would help to make people feel more inolved in what goes on in thier state and the managment choices that are made. Also it would greately reduce the gap between the average worm dunker and the more informed anglers like the ones on this site. It would also cut down on many people's ignorance about fishieries topics.

 

[tomgamber]

So if
"angler use on those brook trout streams was very low to none"
and
"based on the low exploitation rates observed during this study,
special regulations would not be expected to have an impact on
most Pennsylvania wild trout populations."

Then what would be the harm in implementing (just as examples)
larger size limits, smaller creel limits, catch and release, etc...with the
the purpose of satisfying the public preference. If noone is keeping the
fish then you won't be stepping on anyones toes by protecting these fish.
If they can take a stream like Young Woman's Creek, fudge a survey
because local factions want it to be stocked, (and make a lot of other
anglers angry) then they can certainly do something that according to
your own data, wouldn't really affect anyone negatively.

 

[JackM]

Well, it will take me some time to track the articles down and read them, and I have little doubt that they will show that in a particular case, stocking had an impact on wild trout, or that hatchery trout had trouble adapting or surviving. The questions that will be interesting to see if they answer is whether it was stocking itself that harmed wild trout populations or some other factor and whether stocking in any amount in any situation does so, or whether a level of stocking in certain stream environments can be done without causing a detrimental impact to the wild trout populations. Likewise with survival issues. Without reading the articles and considering the evidence and the breadth of conclusions, I can't pass judgment on these issues. There is always a limit to the conclusions that can be drawn from an empirical study and it may be limited to the particular circumstances of the study or it may have broader implication, all of which depends upon whether controls studies were set up or if not, whether we know enough about the various factors that influence the outcome to predict like outcomes in other situations. Statements like "Everyone knows that stocking over wild trout populations is bad (or detrimental to the wild fish)" is quite broad a statement, as are statements such as "very few stocked trout survive more than a few weeks in a stream." It is the validity of such "universal truths" that I have always questioned, and continue to question, though I would like to see what light may be shed on those issues by the articles you cited. Unfortunately, I cannot obtain copies of the articles on-line as the archives are only available to subscribers. It will have to wait until I can make it to a University library, which may not be anytime soon.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

well thanks for the response mike. im not suprised you dont remember the conversation, you probably have talked to 50 million people by now. :-D anyways, you just cant satisfy me mike, ;-) as afishinado stated i spend alot of time on wild trout waters. i have found PA's hidden gems, the wild trout fishing is great. but im a beliver that they could be better.
some class c,d streams should have regs on them to protect the brook trout while habitat is restored.
class b streams should be class a with some work and dont stock any of them. i like my wild trout fishing in its most pure form. something you and the pfbc can never give me with pellet fed trout. i see a day where alot of our fisheries are better. whats wrong with regs to protect the streams that need it???

p.s. your survey missed this fisherman. i catch alot of wild trout. its all i do. i catch alot more than 5 in fact im hitting a small stream towmorrow :-D

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

oh yeah, fish i ll call anyone out to give his opinion. just because he works there doesnt mean he doesnt have a voice, its his fishery too. :-D

 

[Squaretail]

In this year of promoting "Bigger and better" and the way its accelerated harvesting, the last thing I would do is tell people go harvest wilds you wont hurt a thing. But I would never say that to anyone anyway to be honest. There once was a time when you could actuallly catch 20+" native brookies in this state.
Whatever happened to "Limit your kill, dont kill you limit" ?

 

[TimMurphy]

Dear squaretail,

Yes, there was probably a time when you could catch 20 inch brook trout but you had to ride a covered wagon and fight Indians on your way to do it. Why do people always forget that part?

There are too many people and too much development nowadays to turn back time to 1850. Like afishinado says we now have to concentrate on maintaining what we have because we simply can't go back.

Regards,
Tim Murphy

 

[Squaretail]

Tim,
I'm with you and Afish 100%. We never will get back the size of those fish. Not in the native form. What I'm saying is in 20 yrs I dont want to be saying" we used to catch 10" native brookies in this state".
As you probably know its not just the development and siltation but also the raping of the gene pool by harvesting every large fish one can. Some natives can reach 10" in 6yrs and others only 7" 6 yrs even though they may live in the same stream with pools adjacent to each other.