Chaz wrote: "you cannt make a general statement that because of a study, either the wild trout study done by PFBC, or the SMNP study tells us that for all streams there is no change in the population structure bcause of harvest."
Chaz,
I agree with you about general statements about any complicated subject, but since most of the anglers did not harvest or harvested few fish (harvest rate of 0.1 – 0.3 fish / hour fished) the study confirmed that if anglers practice C&R, the impact on the population is minimal……..dddaaaahhhh! This was not really a study of the effects on the wild trout populations of a stream with harvesting verses non-harvesting practices. Essentially since the control streams were closed, and the studied streams were opened to harvest but had voluntary C&R, the harvest factor is essentially taken out of the equation. I’ll go out on a limb and state that if fisherman did harvest the legal fish they caught, the population, of at least adult fish, would decline. If certain streams in PA are subject to even moderate harvest, the same would hold true.
I believe that the argument with the PFBC with wild trout regulations should be about the amount of harvesting of trout on a particular stream. The one example I have cited to Mike is Hay Creek in Berks County. Hay in the upper approved section either is or could be a class A stream in that section. Many wild fish are harvested in the spring due to the fishing pressure after it is stocked. Some wild fish will move back in after the circus leaves town, but the majority of legal sized wild fish are killed. I know of other streams, while Chaz, Sal, and many others could probably write volumes.
The problem in PA is that making all wild trout streams C&R would be wildly unpopular to many fishermen. The alternative of designating certain streams C&R would put a bull’s eye on them, making them wildly popular with many fisherman, and may result of more posted land, and a poor fishing experience. Tough choices.
