Culling

By all means, lets dump more fish in marginal trout water. Quite frankly, when I'm meat fishing, I want easy meat.

I kind of like that idea Sal......have two trout stamps. You could buy one and it would support C an R wild trout fishing experiences and entitle you to the C and R rivers the other to support stocked experiences and would entitle you to fish stocked streams. You could obviously buy both if you wish. You would be voting with your wallet.

The PFBC could then divide up the rivers or a portion of the rivers on a county by county or region by region basis into different regulations based somewhat on the ratio of those stamp sales in that county/region.

I really think the C and R fisherman and the meat/bait fisherman don't really want to fish the same streams in a lot of cases. So both groups could get what they want to a large degree without anyone practically giving up anything. I have absolutely no problem making a stream C and R if no meat fisherman want to fish it if it will make the C and R fisherman happy.

If you want to look at complicated fishing regs, look at washington state....i was just there and you need a seperate stamp for about every species of fish and another to park your car on public land. It was their way to have "seperate pots" of money to support various recreational uses of their public land. Its a pain in the butt but its equitable.
 
thanks ohio it isnt to often somebody likes an idea of mine. i thought about the two stamp thing last night....i thought it was a good idea.
 
OhioOutdoorsman wrote:
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.
Click to expand...

Also, don't ask us just to ASSUME that "general regs" are gospel truth. Were the general regs established on any scientific basis?

On limestone streams, which are more stable than freestone stream, the effects of harvest on trout population are well established. The record is very clear on that.

On freestone streams it is esssentially impossible to do any sort of scientific year-to-year study, for the reasons I described. Since you can't prove it either way, you're left with having to make reasonable assumptions based on what info you have.

Is is more reasonable to assume that harvest is having no effect than it is to assume that harvest is having an effect? If so, why? (Keeping in mind what has already been established on limestone streams.)

Explain your answers. Include graphs and charts for extra credit.
:-D
 
Troutbert,

I'm did not saying C and R does not work on some streams. It obviosuly does.

I'm not asking you to ASSUME anything.

All I am saying is if you don't want to accept scientific study as a valid means for making decisions, please give us an alternative methodology to use.

So what methodology should the PFBC use?

And if we don't have evidence one way or another on a given stream and the fish seem to be doing OK, like on most approved trout waters, why change? Why restrict the creel? What is the positive justification for that?

Should we just generalize that all fisheries would be better off catch and release extrapolating data from heavily fished limestone streams to lightly fished freestoners? And if we do institute C and R regs on these streams and it turns out not to make a difference should we then just criticize the studies and keep them C and R for no reason at all?

And how much improvement is signifigant? Is increasing fish size an inch on average or increasing biomass by 10% really worth restricting fishing for?

What would you do? How would you run the PFBC?
 
And if we don't have evidence one way or another on a given stream and the fish seem to be doing OK, like on most approved trout waters, why change?
Click to expand...

The trout are doing OK on most approved (stocked) trout waters?

The PFBC biologists who founded Operation Future certainly didn't agree with that. The stated reason for Operation Future was that stocking over wild trout, and the increased harvest that accompanied it, reduced wild trout populations. And this wasn't just the PFBC idea, this is well established within the fisheries field, and has been for decades.
 
Troutbert,

I'm not surprised. You took the one positively phrased statement I made and criticicized it. You answered none of my other questions.

I'm still waiting for you to say what methodology you would use. Almost sounded like you wanted to use the scientific studies of operation future to support a plan for C and R on the very streams you said studies were invalid and impossible to do. But I won't put words in your mouth.

OK, I'll play along.

So how can you draw concusions about C and R on lightly pressure wild trout streams from studies that have stocking and increased pressure due to stocking?

Please give a plan of action. Otherwise, you look like you are just cherry picking the studies that support your C and R agenda and criticizing all others.
 
the way i see it the study would have to happen this way to get good data. pick 6 streams and close them to fishing. brook trout run under a life cycle. drought years killing them, getting old and dying, and many other factors. after determining the avg. population over 5 years. then the PFBC should fish it.
1 stream C&R fly only
1 stream bait only
1 stream bait and fly
1 stream bait barbless
1 stream fly barbless
1 stream no fishing (use as control)
fish them in moderate pressure one year then light the next.
then after 5 years see what the data says.
this is the only way because as of now there is no way to determine who is fishing it and with what tackle. nor with what kind of pressure.
 
Here were the conclusions of Operation Future for declining brook trout populations in PA (Gregory 2006, TU website):

* Removal of streamside vegetation.

* Increasing sedimentation from developed lands.

* Nutrient runoff.

* Pollution from roads, highways, parking lots.

* Stocking hatchery fish on top of wild trout.


Nothing about regulations there. The above problems are things we 99% of us can agree on. Lets focus our efforts there. If you focus on regs instead of the above issues, you just divide mostly like minded people and weaken your cause for increasing brook trout populations. But then again, maybe the real cause is restricting fisherman and not saving fish.......and thats fine, just don't call it conservation.
 
>>Here were the conclusions of Operation Future for declining brook trout populations in PA (Gregory 2006, TU website):>>

How about supplying either a working link or even just a url we can copy/paste to this information.


You appear to have a few wires crossed in your nomenclature...

Providing a link will help clear it up.

Thanks
 
The Gregory Article above talked about Operation Future, but I know of no links to the actual study as it was done in the 70s and 80s apparently, back when I was watching Scooby Doo and chucking worms at bluegill.

Somehow I've gone from arguing for the right take a few fish from a healthly invasive wild brown population in the Little J thread to having to defend the current regs relatively unpressured native brook trout streams, something I have no interest in doing. Bunch of inconsequential wasted hot air on both sides of the arguement.

Does stocking over wild brook trout need to stop? Yes.

Do we need C and R regs on wild brook trout water? I don't care. I don't think the fish will care either, because no one besides the C and R crowd fishes them to a signifigant degree. Do whatever you want. If you want to regaulate for the sake of regulating, go ahead.

I'm going fishing.....
 
I think this is the study Ohio is talking about.

TU Study

Edit: This is actually a link to an article about the study, not the study itself.
 
Thanks Ian...

That clears it up for me. The way OO phrased it in the post I questioned, it sounded like the conclusions he listed were some of the output of Operation Future, which to my knowledge had no such focus.

I see now where I got that idea.


I think everybody involved in this discussion has made good points.

The only thing I'll say in addition to what has already been put forth is that I noticed in the Gregory piece that he seems to be advocating cutting the umbilical between license sales and Commission policy by granting PFBC access to at least some general revenue monies. I used to be adamantly opposed to doing this. I've changed my mind and think it may be worth the risk of additionally exposing Commission policy to the whims of some of the hairballs in the General Assembly.

I see now that the same organizational structure that I once believed critical for keeping wild trout policy in the hands of fisheries professionals can just as easily switch some policy priorites in the opposite direction in times of fiscal hardship..
 
ohio all i simply meant was if we are going to do a study on regs, such as the WBTEP, then lets get good data. the WBTEP IS about regs and not habitat.
i hear so much that regs dont cause a decline in pops, then when i say it could, you ask for proof. no such study has been done. so whats the harm in trying i ask? maybe because we are afraid to find it does.
today my fishing buddy found a pvt section of water not stocked since before i was born. any C&R flyfisherman can fish it if they ask. the stream is teaming with 10-15 inch wild rainbow and brook trout. and alot of 10-14 inch brookies. im going there monday to catch some and so you guys these beautiful fish. i walked through there once and saw 3 15 inch brookies. the regs are no fishing! (unless you ask and no one does) regs dont have an effect? i belive they do as well as habitat. but what do i know.....just where the big fish are!
 
Ian -

Thanks for the link.

Sal,

I think you, I, Jack, and many others are looking forward to the BTEP study with an open mind.

If troutbert isn't willing to accept studying an individual freestone stream in a pre-post intervention due to too much year to year variability, I would hope he would be willing to accept a case control study of BTEP vs simular streams over the same time period. Increase the power of the study by increasing your sample size. This would be as good as it gets. If he just wants to criticize, throw science out the window, or only use science when it supports his preconceived notions, then he needs to provide an alternate methodology for the PFBC to make descisions.

Glad you found a good stream with large wild fish. Enjoy. Be sure to send the owner a nice christmas card. I know on the private land I hunt, chopping wood and repairing roads goes a long way to me not wearing out my welcome.
 
iam willing to except the study. at least they are trying. i just worry that without knowing who is utilizing the resource it might not be really good data. im anxious to see if it goes well. i belive we all hope it does. i do however still belive a few more brookie streams should be catch and release. now please know i am not talking about streams stocked that have wild brook trout. im talking about streams with only wild brook trout. i dont belive the meaters would have a problem with a few getting this status. i would even be willing to bet the pfbc would think that also. there most certainly isnt enough of those little streams with good regs on them.

oh im gonna send this guy something like a christmas card! :-D
the thing that is amazing is the stream isnt far from where i grew up and i never knew those fish where in there until a few weeks ago. most people dont realize how much pvt land is open if they would just simpily ask the landowner permission. but with all that said we all should take a moment and think about how lucky we are to have what we do have. SGL's and the special reg areas are ours to enjoy! the pfbc easements purchased, though i wish there were more, are great to. thanks to the state agencies that have given so many great places to fish for generations to come.
they to should get christmas cards! :-D
 
Sal,

Just a word to the wise on the private property thing. I would not take anyone or tell anyone about the stretch of river without the landowners permission. These are the only spots I won't share. I once brought a friend to some private hunting land that I had hunted all the time with my best friend (it was an abondoned farm that his family owned), and this was the only time that he has gotten really upset with me. It might at some point seem that its you're own river, but really you're always a guest and its a priveledge and not a right to be there.
 
ian_brown wrote:
I think this is the study Ohio is talking about.

TU Study

Edit: This is actually a link to an article about the study, not the study itself.
Click to expand...

This article is not about Operation Future at all. And the conclusions mentioned about the decline of brook are those of the author, Mr. Gregory, and are not derived from, or related in any way to, Operation Future.

Operation Future was a PFBC program begun in the late 1970s where they began measuring trout populations. (That had not been done prior to that time.) They then began taking some of the streams with high wild trout populations (which they referred to as Class A streams) off the stocking list.

The rationale was that the wild trout populations would do better if hatchery trout were not stocked on top of them. They ran articles in PA Angler explaining this concept.
 
Dave,
I didn't suggest that PFBC change habitat while doing the study. The numbers presented were from data collected after several years and not really froma specific study anyway. What I suggested was that in order to do anything about the lack of response to C & R regs that PFBC should determine why C & R works on some streams and not others and if it is habitat then improve the habitat. Personally I think it is more habitat than anything other factor. but that is just my opninion.
What we want to do with the EBTJV project is find streams on public land that have wild brook trout populations, find the biomass and determine what the impairments are and fix them. We want to do this first on the streams that aren't Class A and work from a short list to see if we can improve the biomass. But C & R should be part of the overall plan.
Jack, As I recall the streams were listed separately as to whether they were brook trout or brown trout streams. There was a mix of streams as to whether they were limestone or freestone, but there are no purely limestone brook trout streams with C & R regualtions on them the answer to your statement is what I said previously. 50 % of the Brook Trout Streams responded positively to C & R the other 50% did not, our job to to find out why and do something about it, not argue whether C & R will have an impact.
 
im not that dumb ohio even if it seems i might be :p
 
I totally agree with Chaz's apporach towards brook trout. I think most anglers (meat, spin, fly, and C and R) would support erring on the side of caution with wild PA brook trout and go C and R as it is threatened, native, state fish that has little value as a meat fish because of their average small size. We should also ban fishing for them all together on the most threatened watersheds. I personally won't do much if any fishing at all on these watersheds, but that is beside the point.

You could also just stop stocking brook trout and make, brook trout C and R everywhere, regardless of where caught.

If we are talking wild, invasive brown and rainbow trout, which are not threatened and are part of the problem causing brook trout decline, I think they need to be managed for fishing experience and sustainability, and that in most cases, a creel can and should be allowed.

Practically speaking, maybe we all should advocate for three things as a start:

1) Encourage the PFBC to use more of its funds to purchase and restore wild trout habitat
2) Don't decrease the amount of stocking, but stop stocking over
wild brook trout
3) Take the number of river miles currently under C and R regs and receiving stocked fish, eliminate them, and have an equivalent number of river miles of C and R regs over wild fish. This could mean either making a wild population that is currently under class A regs (say Porcupine Creek for example) or wilderness designation or other non-approved trout waters be C and R or by stop stocking a stream that has a signifigant wild population that is currently under C and R regs. Emphasize the need for more brook trout populations to be under C and R regs.

Troutbert, you are correct, when I googled Operation Future, this was the only link I got. Good job on another sucessful criticism. Excuse my haste. Where can I/we get info on this study.....
 
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