I'm still curious if you support the C&R regs for Brown Trout on the LJR, Letort, Penns, Spring, Falling Spring, Yellow Creek, West Branch Sus. etc.? Were those regulations implemented to protect larger brown trout? Was the slot limit reg type created to protect larger brown trout? I assume they'll implement the slot limit on Spring Creek. Do you support that? You don't support C&R for "larger" brook trout, so I would assume you also don't support the same approach for brown trout.
No, I don’t, at least not on all. I support special regs when the quality of the fishery has declined substantially usually due to cropping off of fish down to a certain small(ish) size (think middle and lower Susquehanna SMB prior to Big Bass Regs), when populations have substantially declined overall due to fishing (think east coast striped bass), and when a special reg would be biologically necessary (think Bluegill populations that stunt when all or the vast majority of large Bluegill have been cropped off). There are also special situations for situations such as federally endangered and threatened species, e.g. Bull Trout. I don’t support the application of special regs for “social reasons” (think FFO) or for “educational purposes.” If volunteers wish to post signs encouraging anglers to return identify and release wild trout captured from stocked trout streams, I have no problem with that. In fact, I assisted a group that posted such signs on a stocked wild BT stream in York Co by switching the species stocked to 100% RT in an effort to aid stocked trout anglers with species I.D.
As I have mentioned in the past a number of special regs on Pa trout streams were historically likely established for political and social reasons and not biological reasons, such as some that were originally Fish For Fun Projects, and were then essentially grandfathered into another program. I think some regulation changes on specific waters could be beneficial and if one were to eliminate the C&R regs on all wild trout streams in Pa, it’s likely in my view that more populations would be properly managed than not when one considers BT limited vulnerability and the evolved voluntary C&R behavior of the modern angler. The Littlle J has too many small fish and could use some harvest in my opinion and that of a former colleague closely associated with that stream. Spring Creek would make a great comparative experiment if a portion of that stream was shifted to statewide regs. I can’t comment on Yellow Ck due to my unfamiliarity with that stream. As for Falling Springs that was primarily a RT stream when I used to survey it so if that’s still the case, then that’s a different thing entirely due to the vulnerability of RT to harvest (vs BT).
As for the newish slot limit, I consider that to be an anemic approach. I know of no paper published where slot limits designed to encourage harvest in order to speed up the growth of remaining fish in the harvestable slot has worked. If I missed some, then I’m pretty confident that the losers are still way ahead. In theory, however, the remaining faster growing fish quickly then grow through the harvestable slot into larger size classes that are protected from harvest. The failures, including those for largemouth bass, have been because anglers continued to ignore the slot in favor of C&R fishing. If Pa really wanted to encourage harvest and have a shot at an effective slot across a broader spectrum of streams, it would expand the creel limit to
at least 5 within the slot. This would encourage the few anglers who still harvest wild trout from streams managed solely for wild trout to fish slot stretches, even if they were not often successful in harvesting 5. Instead we have this half-hearted, lower creel limit effort in encouraging harvest…by the fly and lure crowd no less. The Codorus, for example, is going to have to see a heck of a harvest to produce bigger fish of the size found outside of the special reg area (and the Monocacy, I suspect, is likely going to need some better habitat).
As for Letort, as a generality we often find that the bigger B T are outside of special reg areas on the same streams with sections managed under special regs and other sections managed under statewide regs. I understand the social and historical factors at work in the Letort, but if one were only to consider fish and fishing for a moment, the reg would be removed as being ineffective in producing big BT. The Letort has a much greater abundance of large BT outside of the special reg area.
Do I ever think that large BT need special regs? Possibly. I would never completely rule it out. Spring Ck would be the most interesting experimental test as I mentioned above because of the pressure that it receives. What would happen to the length distribution, the quality of the fishing, growth rates, mortality rates, and the abundance of desirable size BT if a long segment went to statewide regs in comparison to a long segment that remained C&R?
