Good News For Penns Wild Trout

[pcray1231]

We're interested in protecting trout populations, not individual trout. That's what makes us different than PETA types.

I'm not worried about pain and suffering. I don't care if a few fish die, in fact in some fisheries it may do some good.

And I'll freely admit it's self serving. I care about game populations because I like to fish and hunt. I don't see the status quo as "natural", hence we are free to manage them in a way that brings enjoyment to the greatest number of people. I have no issue with exploiting wildlife for recreation. Though I do take a long term view of that, with sustainability being the key concept. The goal is to sustain recreational opportunity.

But if a situation exists where a few people in a short amount of time could harm an entire fishery for the next few years, ruining it for everyone else, yeah, I think that should be addressed. The same as I think it's fine to keep wild trout in some situations, but not others.

 

[Reeder]

I agree with case by case limited bans for extreme situations, like the one that was just done on penns, not blanket bans for several months. Being worried about populations of trout vs individual trout makes no difference when you end up with the same result...banning fishing. I just find it ironic that a fishing site is where I find all of the proposed fishing bans ranging from June to opening day. In my lifetime, I have still not seen a shortage of trout, or fishing opportunities, in spite of the lack of fishing bans that so many yearn for.

 

[geebee]

just for Reference, in my experience both the CT and WA state authorities update their fish closures weekly river by river, pond by pond.

it clearly states on your License that YOU are responsible for knowing the UPDATED regs. they update their website weekly and issue a statement to the press to publish.

it seems that this is what we need here.

 

[salmonoid]

geebee wrote:
just for Reference, in my experience both the CT and WA state authorities update their fish closures weekly river by river, pond by pond.

it clearly states on your License that YOU are responsible for knowing the UPDATED regs. they update their website weekly and issue a statement to the press to publish.

it seems that this is what we need here.

Why? What populations of fish are being harmed by not having the fishing bans? Maybe we should ban 7x tippet and playing trophy trout for 20 minutes too?

Ignorant anglers will still harm trout, regardless if there is a fishing ban or not. Ignorant anglers are the bane of the trouts' existence.

 

[Reeder]

just for Reference, in my experience both the CT and WA state authorities update their fish closures weekly river by river, pond by pond. it clearly states on your License that YOU are responsible for knowing the UPDATED regs. they update their website weekly and issue a statement to the press to publish. it seems that this is what we need here.

Why does it seem we need this? Which wild trout population has been wiped out and by whom? I would bet that 99% of anglers who are good enough to pose a real threat to an entire population of fish on a stream like penns, if such an angler even exists, would have gained enough knowledge and common sense in their experience to not do such a thing. I would also bet that the other 1%, no matter how good, would ever be able to coax enough non feeding, spawning fish, or lethargic, non feeding, oxygen deprived "survival mode" fish into feeding and being caught at a rate that could ever pose a threat to the population. I don't know of it ever happening.

Just curious...What are the water temps like now in these cold water refuge areas where the trout are stacked on Penns?

 

[Sylvaneous]

Reeder wrote:

just for Reference, in my experience both the CT and WA state authorities update their fish closures weekly river by river, pond by pond. it clearly states on your License that YOU are responsible for knowing the UPDATED regs. they update their website weekly and issue a statement to the press to publish. it seems that this is what we need here.

Why does it seem we need this? Which wild trout population has been wiped out and by whom? I would bet that 99% of anglers who are good enough to pose a real threat to an entire population of fish on a stream like penns, if such an angler even exists,

I just don't think you're getting it. probably any thermally stressed fish that is hooked will die.
This isn't an issue of absolute extinction. 20 fish in Penns is the same as none. I don't want a presence. I want ABUNDANCE. You know, that good thing when there is plenty? Milk and honey and all that?

If we can't keep this discussion about thermally stressed trout, comparing apples to apples, and agree that an abundance of mature wild trout isn't in angler's interest, then there is no reason to continue the discussion. Steelhead in PA and fish on their nests are different issues.

Syl

 

[Reeder]

If we can't keep this discussion about thermally stressed trout, comparing apples to apples, and agree that an abundance of mature wild trout isn't in angler's interest, then there is no reason to continue the discussion.

Nothing I have talked about is unrelated to the original post or the comments that followed. You are free to opt out of the discussion whenever you want, but you won't be picking and choosing which parts I respond to.

This isn't an issue of absolute extinction. 20 fish in Penns is the same as none. I don't want a presence. I want ABUNDANCE.

I never claimed it was. I want abundance as well. I stopped fishing for trout back in the end of June. I support the temporary posting on Penns. But imagined scenarios like the one above are not going to get me on board for blanket fishing bans based on times of the year. The trout seem to be doing just fine without them.

 

[afishinado]

tomitrout wrote:
Question for discussion....

From a sporting sense, what's the difference between fishing over a pod of fish that's stack up at a thermal refuge vs a pod of fish stacked into a hole as they attempt to move upstream during the spawn?

A pod of fish in a thermal refuge are pretty much trapped....move out and they will die. They are in there struggling to survive and are most likely weakened from the extreme conditions.

Mike gave us some good info about how trout are stressed when water temps rise to 68* and above:

With respect to lethal water temps, it is important to not focus on just one form of lethality, that being thermal maxima. There is a whole other form of lethal temps: chronically warm temps. Ignoring Brook Trout, that problem begins around 68 deg F...68.1 for hatchery RT and I expect probably a very similar number for Browns. At that point the percentage of the RT that die throughout a late spring and summer due to temp stress alone is directly related to the number of 15 minute periods per month that the water temp exceeds 68 deg F. It does not matter if the temp drops below 68 deg each night, as the tally continues the next day once the temp rises above 68 again. The 15 min periods above 68 deg accumulate daily through the end of the month .

I won't be part of that. I will fish elsewhere for trout, like in a tailwater (one with cold water) or a true spring creek. Or better yet, grab my 7wt and and a box of poppers and buggers and watch the smallies slam them!

If you ran into a huge buck with his antlers caught in a barbed wire fence would your go down to your truck and grab your rifle....or your wire cutters?

 

[FarmerDave]

moon1284 wrote:
I'd be all for it if they changed steelhead rules to no added weight to the line (I.e. Split shots, slinkies, etc.) This would eliminate lining and drifiting egg patterns and nymphs directly into a fishes mouth, and centerpinning. It would allow fishing streamers and spinners and spoons for the non fly guys.

Seriously?

 

[pcray1231]

I want abundance as well. I stopped fishing for trout back in the end of June. I support the temporary posting on Penns. But imagined scenarios like the one above are not going to get me on board for blanket fishing bans based on times of the year. The trout seem to be doing just fine without them.

That I kind of agree with.

It's not that I'm that opposed to full scale stream closures like they do in the west. I'm not "morally" opposed to such measures. If I thought it was helpful to the fishery, I'd be for it. And, I believe there are cases that it could be.

But to be honest I haven't seen evidence as such in PA, where I think large scale angler pressure seriously lowered the survival rate of fish in warmish waters. I've seen angler impact issues and I've seen water temperature issues. But I can't say I've ever seen a situation where I thought fish could've handled one or the other but both at the same time just proved to be too much, and that a temporary full stream closure would have noticeably improved the outcome.

Not to say it doesn't happen.

I still support smaller scale closures like this one where stressed fish may gather in large numbers, hence making it easier for a few anglers to do a large amount of harm in a short time.

And, btw, I don't think you need to stop fishing for trout entirely in the summertime. If you choose to, fine. But if you wanna fish for trout I'd just tell people to carry a thermometer and be choosy about where to fish. There are plenty of streams that stay cold, and they are fine to fish.

Where to draw the line is an individual question, but for me, it's always been 70 in the late afternoon. Meaning, if a stream is reaching 70 degrees at any point of the day, I don't fish, even in the morning when it's cooler than that.

 

[geebee]

Reeder wrote:

Why does it seem we need this? Which wild trout population has been wiped out and by whom?

which trout ?

Brook Trout in basically every major PA trout river except the odd spring creek.

how do think they got fished out ? - they were fished out in higher water temps.

as a side note, CT also has a program to create woody thermal refuges in these spots to prevent predation from both human and avian forms.

cheers

Mark.

 

[geebee]

pcray1231 wrote:

It's not that I'm that opposed to full scale stream closures like they do in the west.

from my limited experience, full stream closures are unusual for trouts in the west unless anadromous or undergoing restoration - goldens, Gila etc

more usual is certain sections below the headwaters, from x to y bridge etc so they can clearly enforce it.

 

[Trico3]

Good job by PA DCNR. During drought conditions like this summer those areas should be posted as closed to fishing & trespassing and can easily be done because of being on State Forest land. I suppose other areas may not get closed due to being on privately owned land.
DCNR also did a great job on the tunnel repair at Poe Valley, but can we get them to fix the road at the Cherry Run end that they pot holed like an exhausted mine field!
In early July while in Montana, we heard of lots of "Hoot Owl Warnings" or closures. River sections were very well defined on those announcements. Those were on well known waters like the Madison River and the Big Hole.

 

[pcray1231]

Geebee, yeah, brookies are largely gone from larger waters. They weren't "fished out" though. Angler induced mortality had nothing to do with it.

 

[Hook_Jaw]

Bruce Fisher pushing for the dam removal of the old dam 1 mile above Coburn.

 

[Acristickid]

Sounds like a good idea, just collects sediment and warms the water.

 

[pcray1231]

Playing devils advocate, as my first reaction is to agree, and I probably would in the end. But:

1. The upper end has a lot of farmland. How much of that sediment is trapped and settled out, thus preventing it from going downstream? Would it be better to keep the lake and dredge it periodically to keep it from filling in?

2. Even if #1 is minimal, after removal I'd assume the accumulated sediment will flush downstream. At least temporarily causing harm. How much harm? And how long would it take to flush through and get back to normal? Again, is some dredging/excavation prior to dam removal to get rid of that sediment helpful?

3. Agree that regarding water temps, the effects can only be positive. But given the very small nature of the lake behind that dam, I could see those positive effects being negligible. If the siltation situation causes harm, it may not be worth it.

If it were to go anywhere these need to be discussed.

 

[geebee]

pcray1231 wrote:
Playing devils advocate, as my first reaction is to agree, and I probably would in the end. But:

1. The upper end has a lot of farmland. How much of that sediment is trapped and settled out, thus preventing it from going downstream? Would it be better to keep the lake and dredge it periodically to keep it from filling in?

2. Even if #1 is minimal, after removal I'd assume the accumulated sediment will flush downstream. At least temporarily causing harm. How much harm? And how long would it take to flush through and get back to normal? Again, is some dredging/excavation prior to dam removal to get rid of that sediment helpful?

3. Agree that regarding water temps, the effects can only be positive. But given the very small nature of the lake behind that dam, I could see those positive effects being negligible. If the siltation situation causes harm, it may not be worth it.

If it were to go anywhere these need to be discussed.

the way American Rivers do it is to :

1) notch the dam to lower the water levels.
2) cut a by-pass channel for the rest of the water to go round
3) dig out the sediment - and if not toxic replant 'in stream' above the dam with LWD.
4) remove all trace of dam except wings ( it creates a new riffles)
5) close by-pass channel

This is how they did the Herring River in Plymouth PA, the Penobscot in ME and even the upper dam on the Elwha in WA.

in trout and andronomous rivers this is pretty much the only way they can do it without covering potential spawning beds downstream.

in the case of the Lower Elwha the sediment represented 15 millions of tonnes and they had no choice but to break the dam in late fall and allow the winter floods to wash the sediment out to sea, where it now forms a three square mile delta.

three years later and the delta is still growing but the Elwha does run clear in low water now.

imho all anglers should join American Rivers as they do great work, and their emails, projects & articles are always very interesting.

cheers

Mark.

 

[Hook_Jaw]

For sure pros and cons to keep it and removal of it.