R
RLeeP
Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2006
- Messages
- 800
I don't believe across the board C&R protection is warranted on wild trout water in Pennsylvania. I also do not believe that a healthy, garden variety wild brook trout stream in Cameron County should of necessity be managed under the same harvest regs as a similar stream in say, Lancaster County. Or that a low biomass/larger average fish size brook trout population in Schuylkill or Clearfield County or wherever, should be managed the same as either the stream in Cameron or Lancaster County.
I reject the argument that we need to shy away from additionally complicating regs. I think they should be at a minimum, watershed-specific and preferably, where it makes sense, stream specific. If we have enough going on between our ears to get a spoon to our mouth to give us the calories we can convert into energy to depress a gas pedal to get us to the creek, we can learn to make a habit of checking the reg book to see what it says about the stream we plan to fish. And I guess I'd add that the usual objection that "guys won't bother doing this" doesn't hold much water with me. Some guys don't pay any attention to this stuff now and I think most anglers want to obey the law.
I see no real reason not to manage our streams more specifically.
This way, we could manage (just as examples, and not necessarily what I might advocate) our Cameron County creek, which is popping with 6" fish and fewer larger individuals, for 3 or 4 or even 5 fish under an 8" maximum size harvest reg. We could manage our Lancaster County stream, which is in good shape but sees more harvest-oriented traffic, for say, 2 fish over 7" and our low biomass/bigger fish creek some other way (not sure how I might do this one..).
Just my view..
I reject the argument that we need to shy away from additionally complicating regs. I think they should be at a minimum, watershed-specific and preferably, where it makes sense, stream specific. If we have enough going on between our ears to get a spoon to our mouth to give us the calories we can convert into energy to depress a gas pedal to get us to the creek, we can learn to make a habit of checking the reg book to see what it says about the stream we plan to fish. And I guess I'd add that the usual objection that "guys won't bother doing this" doesn't hold much water with me. Some guys don't pay any attention to this stuff now and I think most anglers want to obey the law.
I see no real reason not to manage our streams more specifically.
This way, we could manage (just as examples, and not necessarily what I might advocate) our Cameron County creek, which is popping with 6" fish and fewer larger individuals, for 3 or 4 or even 5 fish under an 8" maximum size harvest reg. We could manage our Lancaster County stream, which is in good shape but sees more harvest-oriented traffic, for say, 2 fish over 7" and our low biomass/bigger fish creek some other way (not sure how I might do this one..).
Just my view..
