Culling

[troutbert]

JackM wrote:
So for all who won't embrace the validity of the experiment ahead of time, please spare us the "I-told-you-so" if the results end up supporting your own theory of the positive effects of C & R.

Jack, don't worry. PFBC managers have said, on numerous occassions, that regulations are just for social reasons, not for biological reasons. So I think it's unlikely they will announce that the studies found that C&R worked.

Of course some of the top guys have retired recently or will be retiring soon. If someone with a different mindset gets the job, the studies might in fact reveal that it worked. Ah, fisheries "science."

 

[Mike]

Troutbert, whether or not biologists believe the regs will work will not impact the objectivity of the studies or surveys designed to test whether or not the regs have worked. Many are intrigued by unanticipated results.

 

[TimMurphy]

JackM wrote:
So for all who won't embrace the validity of the experiment ahead of time, please spare us the "I-told-you-so" if the results end up supporting your own theory of the positive effects of C & R.

Dear Jack,

Absolutely no insult or slur intended upon your heritage but are you sure you are Italian?

You argue like an Irishman. In fact I'll go as far as to say that you are more stubborn and steadfast than this Irishman. I give up arguing with these people, they wouldn't know reason, nor logic, if it kicked them in the arse.

Stand proud lad!

Regards,
Tim Murphy

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

Well troutbert, if you don't acknowledge the validity of studies, the PFBC is stuck using regs for social reasons. Please be prepared to defend C and R for social reasons, then.

Don't ask us just to ASSUME that C and R regs are gospel truth.

 

[JackM]

Tim, I only am half Italian. There IS some Irish blood on my Mom's side. Anyhow, I am interested in seeing if the C & R regulations would help some of our wild brookie streams, but I feel deep inside that the limiting factor with these isn't harvest-- mainly because when I hit brookie streams I rarely see other anglers-- I rather think that habitat and forage account for the small size and relatively weak populations. That said, I am prepared to be proven wrong and it seems this experiment could yield data that is capable of changing my mind. I just think that anglers who think harvest is the limiting factor should be prepared to have their minds changed when we learn the results, but I am prepared to hear the nitpicking and rationalizing over the experiment if the results don't "confirm" their contrary belief that meat anglers are decimating our brookie streams.

 

[Chaz]

Jack,
Our own Mike has presented information at the trout summit and to organizations the impacts of C & R regulations on fisheries. He's a fisheries biologist for PFBC as you may know, what was presented to my recollection is that C & R was successful on about 1/2 the streams that had those regs, and the other half was a mixed bag of failure or no increase. I can accept that, but of course in the time it took to do the presentation there was no suggestion as to what can be done for the "other half." I believe that habitat is the key, habitat has the power to mitigate floods and droughts if the habitat is good, but if habitat is poor, then it exacerbates the productivity of the stream and either compounds the problem or completely negates the benefits of C & R.
So if you were to go in on the streams with no impact of C & R and do some restoration, will the trout populations respond? I think they would. But PFBC has to stop saying and using the “Social Reasons” mentality, or at least explain why they are doing things for social reasons, and use regulations as a management tool along with restoration to improve wild trout populations.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

well i can see the point that a rainbow has to be in the 18-20 before it eats alot of significant baitfish. but thats just one fish. it probably takes more minnows to fill a fish like that. but given the standard the falling spring has set....a stream with a plentiful 1-15 inch range bows....id say all of those fish could eat a heck of alot of minnows.
brook trout will eat anything, including themselves. one day i plan to catch one with its tail in its mouth :-D

WBTE
Open to fishing year-round (no closed season).
No brook trout may be killed or had in possession.
There are no tackle restrictions.
The regulations apply to brook trout only; all other species, inland regulations apply.
A current trout/salmon permit is required.

we all know that percentage and survival of brook trout using barbed vs unbarbed. bait vs lure.(as posted by chaz.....btw thank you)
so given these regulations and the added pressure ....i dont see how it could become a success.
now an idea would to be .....make all streams that are class a C&R AFLO for 5 years....then the pressure would dispurse, the tackle would be in correct shape, and the results wouldnt he accussed as being tainted.

maybe im wrong we will se with the WBTE data. Im HOPIN its a success.

 

[Chaz]

Trust me on this, no trout will reach 20 inches eating only insects. Only the trout that make the change or who's diet is mostly larger prey get to grow to more then about 14 inches. 14 inches is the limit, if you look at stream surveys you'll see that the drop off of larger fish is quite dramatic, 14 inch trout are common, to > 14 inch trout are at or near zero. even in the best streams, this can be limited by floods and droughts so it isn't only related to diet as droughts and floods impact large fish much more so than small fish.
Good examples of trout population dynamics are on the PFBC's web site see the Little Lehigh, Slate Run Cedar Run and Saucon surveys in particular. These are all streams anglers consider fertile yet the populations of very large trout is very low.

 

[JackM]

Chaz wrote:
Jack,
Our own Mike has presented information at the trout summit and to organizations the impacts of C & R regulations on fisheries. He's a fisheries biologist for PFBC as you may know, what was presented to my recollection is that C & R was successful on about 1/2 the streams that had those regs...

Your recollection may be better than mine, but weren't ALL the streams where a mild increase in population occured BROWN trout streams? Were many of them limestone or limestone influenced? I do remember the data somewhat, and I recall drawing the conclusion that it didn't bode well for C & R regs being successful on brookie streams, whether because it only showed promise for brown trout or because most brookie streams are relatively infertile freestoners.

 

[JackM]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
WBTE
Open to fishing year-round (no closed season).
No brook trout may be killed or had in possession.
There are no tackle restrictions.
The regulations apply to brook trout only; all other species, inland regulations apply.
A current trout/salmon permit is required.

we all know that percentage and survival of brook trout using barbed vs unbarbed. bait vs lure.(as posted by chaz.....btw thank you)
so given these regulations and the added pressure ....i dont see how it could become a success.....

maybe im wrong we will se with the WBTE data. Im HOPIN its a success.

If I read this correctly, you are saying that if the data shows no benefit with C & R, it will be the fault of the experiment for allowing bait and barbs, but if it shows an increase of some sort, it will be a "success." Though I am somewhat uncomfortable allowing such a "hedge" at least I know that one person will be required by logic to drop opposition to bait and barbs should the program be deemed a "success." That, at least, is encouraging.

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

Well, it seems that Chaz and Sal are willing to accept studies as valid methodology in principle. And I think Sal bring up some very good points on how the BTEP results only go halfway. But I would also argue that if the BTEP regs do not help and it isn't a class A stream, maybe none of us should fish it at all.

I think there is a very valid social arguement for C and R fishing:

There is a large group of C and R fisherman. Most of these are fly fisherman, most value wild trout, even if they are smaller, more than stocked fish, most enjoy an uncrowded river and peaceful surroundings. Bait and meat fisherman tend to prevent us from having this idyllic fishing expereince, wither through the harvest or injury of wild trout, talking and gathering in groups over the smae hole, and leaving bait and cold beverage containers around the river. So we respectfully request, a PA fishing and trout stamp liscence holders, that the PFBC provide us with more C and R, preferably FFO experiences. Just as you provide the meat fishing public with the "more bigger fish" that they want with your stocking programs, you are obligated to provide us with more C and R FFO experiences over wild trout.

I and probably Jack and the PFBC and many bait/meat/spin fisherman would respect this as a valid arguement and would support more C and R FFO waters on this "social" basis alone.

 

[JackM]

I think there are a good number of these exclusive areas as it is, though I don't think I'd object to a few more or expanding some that exist. But if you really want to make this fly, I say just promise to throw 25% more hatchery fish in the open waters and the rest of the trout angling population will endorse the program whole-heartedly. They don't seem to be as whiny as us about standing within 50 feet of another angler. In fact, if they have enough room to yawn once now and then while catching a limit, they are perfectly happy-- and making them happy is social reason enough to pursue this management strategy.

 

[FarmerDave]

Chaz you are right about habitat. However, that wasn’t part of the study and changing the habitat during the study would invalidate the study. To find out if C&R works, you can’t be changing other things at the same time because you won’t know which change had what effect. Improving the habitat during the study would increase the population indicating that C&R did work when in fact, the improved habitat would mean the stream could handle more harvest.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

yes you read that right jack. if it is a success then why not bait, that is as long a baiters are using the resource, if not then the info is total usless.
ohio that was very well said. there isnt enough C&R water and that is for sure.
one way to fix the problems(in my opinion) is to have a wild trout stamp. while you cant regulate natural reproduction streams that are approved trout waters with a stamp like this you can regulate other waters. lets say the cost is 5 dollars. this 5 dollar stamp would allow access to class a wild trout waters or streams not stocked with natural reproducing trout. the 5 dollars could be put towards fixing habitat problems or should go to the back the brookie program.
so people may complain about this but i wouldnt. it would go to a good cause and i would gladly pay it.

 

[FarmerDave]

Jack, I am with you on this (I think). for the study to be valid, they need to change one thing at a time. in this case it is C&R. If bait angling was allowed before the study, then it should be allowed during the study. Otherwise, if the study showed a success, one could blame it on the elimination of live bait.

I am willing to accept the study if it is handled on a stream by stream basis. But lets face it. Some of the studies in the past were not handled well or at least failed because of political pressure cutting them short. The one where they stopped stocking a few class Bs is a good example of that. it ended up being a waste of time IMHO. Some streams showed improvement, but it was declared statistically insignificant. Other streams showed no improvement. Like any other study, The smaller the sampling is, the greater the change has to be to be statistically significant. Also, the studies need to be long enough to get enough data to average out annual climate changes. Last year was a good year for trout, but this year is looking like it will be a drought year.

 

[JackM]

Dave, I agree. They should do their sampling over a 3 year period at 2-3 different times of year all while the regs remain in place. Then they can at least make educated guesses as to how different climatic events/trends may have impacted the findings. This may involve a lot of additional work and if PFBC needs more manpower, they should seek it. I am pretty sure they would get plenty of volunteers.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

i also see no pro=blem with dumping more fish in approved trout waters if we got more C&R water. the one pig bow i got at lititz was in that stream for a few years now. sits in the same spot doing the same thing. when i got him in his lip was tore.....you can tell he was caught many times before. each fish like this can be caught manytimes for the C&R anglers enjoyment. i wouldnt even mind as long as the stream can hold trout over on a regular basis stocking it only once a year or eveyother year. we dont need more fish we need more water. as far as wild trout water that is C&R we need alot more water! and since the PFBC doesnt need to stock a stream like that....only for for the approved trout waters to get. see now we are getting somewhere...
no thoughts on a wild trout stamp?

 

[FarmerDave]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
yes you read that right jack. if it is a success then why not bait, that is as long a baiters are using the resource, if not then the info is total usless.
ohio that was very well said. there isnt enough C&R water and that is for sure.
one way to fix the problems(in my opinion) is to have a wild trout stamp. while you cant regulate natural reproduction streams that are approved trout waters with a stamp like this you can regulate other waters. lets say the cost is 5 dollars. this 5 dollar stamp would allow access to class a wild trout waters or streams not stocked with natural reproducing trout. the 5 dollars could be put towards fixing habitat problems or should go to the back the brookie program.
so people may complain about this but i wouldnt. it would go to a good cause and i would gladly pay it.

Sal, I have to respectfully disagree. Without getting into it, I think it would be too complicated. We already buy a license to fish streams that are not "approved." We also have a stame once again for erie tribs. now a third stamp? Also, the result would be underutilization of the unstocked streams. That wouldn't be my opinion, but it would be the Fish Commissions opinion. Personally, I would like to see them less utilized. I'd rather see more money from the current trout stamp going for fixing habitat. Raise the price of that stamp if you must, or keep it the same and apply less to producing the stockies.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

hey dave i dont like to argue either. that is a good point they probably would be under utilized....kinda what i think they need=)
but it would be complicated....i wouldnt mind a stamp
rise as long as it goes to habitat restoration and not in someones pocket.

 

[FarmerDave]

JackM wrote:
Dave, I agree.

Just don't make a habit of it. :-D