Idea to encourage release of wild trout

[RRR]

I don't know if it would be feasible, legal or whether it would even make any difference, but how about TU or some organization making up signs which could be posted along streams containing wild trout much like the Approved Trout Water signs the Commission posts? Only these signs would state that this stream has a wild trout population in addition to being stocked, give a description of a wild trout versus a stocked trout and encourage anglers to consider releasing the wild fish they catch. Most of the ones you talk to don't realize that wild trout even exist in many of the streams. I've heard several of them complaining about the tiny fish the state is stocking and have no idea that those tiny fish are wild ones. Maybe some info. on the sign about how many years it takes to grow a wild trout to reasonable size would help. Just a thought but one worth some consideration.

 

[Maurice]

Here is one one our TU chapter came up with and posted around the watershed this year. More than anything, it provides some indicators that;

A, Yes Virginia, there are wild trout.
B, The small colorful browns are not dinks that the F&BC let slip in.
C, No, you do not have to kill everything you catch.
D, Wild trout provide a year-round fishery...provided you don't gut them.
E. How to tell the difference.

If you stop at a bridge or parking area near our watershed, you have an opportunity to read one. We hope it creates conversation and education toward our wild trout resources.

Anyway...Here's yer sign.....

double click on it and enlarge in the lower right of the photo to read it if you wish

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

i like the first sign ;-) no i think the type of sign maurice put up is great. it educates while promoting c&r. good job guy! :-D

 

[FarmerDave]

RRR wrote:
I don't know if it would be feasible, legal or whether it would even make any difference, but how about TU or some organization making up signs which could be posted along streams containing wild trout much like the Approved Trout Water signs the Commission posts? Only these signs would state that this stream has a wild trout population in addition to being stocked, give a description of a wild trout versus a stocked trout and encourage anglers to consider releasing the wild fish they catch. Most of the ones you talk to don't realize that wild trout even exist in many of the streams. I've heard several of them complaining about the tiny fish the state is stocking and have no idea that those tiny fish are wild ones. Maybe some info. on the sign about how many years it takes to grow a wild trout to reasonable size would help. Just a thought but one worth some consideration.

Although your intentions are good, adding more signs can have some negative impact. I for one think there are already too many man made signs in the woods. That said, I always try to weigh the good against the bad and in your example, I feel the good outweighs the bad. I do like Maurice's example. However, I would have a minor problem with adding signs along every stream, and would be against adding signs along streams that are not stocked. It only draws more attention to the stream and screws up the view.

 

[Maurice]

FarmerDave wrote:
...I would have a minor problem with adding signs along every stream, and would be against adding signs along streams that are not stocked. It only draws more attention to the stream and screws up the view.

Agreed. we put ours where the fishing permitted signs are. And maybe one along a rail bed where a hiking fishermen may like to stop for a rest and some education.

 

[FarmerDave]

Maurice,

We agree??? How can this be? :lol:

I really do like your example. Great job!

 

[Wulff-Man]

What a fantastic idea and what a great sign! It would be great if they were put on every stocked stream that has wild trout. Maybe PATU can do something to make this more widespread?

 

[FarmerDave]

It would be nice to see one for brook trout too.

 

[vcregular]

....but brookies do not get big enough to harvest, and besides, most release their fish anyway. So what is the point!??

kidding kidding kidding....

Maurice, great sign! I'd like to see more of this type of educational stuff.

 

[RRR]

Yeah Maurice. That's what I'm talkin about. Glad to see somebody else had the same idea and took action on it. Would be interesting to see if the quality of wild trout improves in your areas that were posted over the next couple years. I thought I made it clear in my original post that I was only talking about putting such signs on stocked waters where wild trout also exist. I too would be against putting them where ONLY wild fish are as that would be like waving a red flag for the kill your catch fraternity. Most people who fish unstocked waters already know what they're after and the signs would probably not have any effect on the ones who came there to kill fish in the first place. Maurice, does your chapter have the original artwork for the signs? I know that being they are full color it would be pretty expensive to print them. Maybe PATU would be willing to foot the bill for the initial printing and charge local chapters if they wanted to buy some. I know the larger the qty. you have printed the less the cost per copy becomes.

 

[Maurice]

RRR,

Because I sort of "borrowed" the images, I was never too excited about sharing the signs. I wasn't too worried about using them in our watershed but passing them along wouldn't be right.

Anyone is free to use the language though, or the ideas of identification.

Maurice

 

[FarmerDave]

RRR wrote:
I thought I made it clear in my original post that I was only talking about putting such signs on stocked waters where wild trout also exist.

You did. My bad.

My response was just poorly written. Part of the reason is that I didn't let your message sink in before I responded, and I started the response off on the wrong foot. The part I added about unstocked streams was supposed to be just that. An addition or a side note to the thread. Sorry.

I still say that the only signs I like to see in the woods are the sings left by wildlife. But, I think it is a good idea to have the signs anywhere that the PF&BC currently puts ATW signs. The good outweighs the bad.

As another side note: If you ask me, the PF&BC already puts too many signs out there. That is just my opinion, and I doubt there is anything anyone can do to change that opinion. Fishing is supposed to be an outdoor experience. Leave the sings in the towns and cities. The maroons who need a sign to tell them where the fish are, aren't going to be catching many anyway. But if you (PF&BC) insist on stocking over wild populations, and advertise that you did it, then it is a good idea to try to educate the anglers who fish there of the importance of wild populations.

Dave

 

[Maurice]

FarmerDave wrote:
...But if you (PF&BC) insist on stocking over wild populations, and advertise that you did it, then it is a good idea to try to educate the anglers who fish there of the importance of wild populations.

Dave

That statement bleeds insanity and circular logic. Thats why there are no signs.

They don't believe that their stocking over wild populations hurts the wild populations...and they will show you the data to prove it on a few streams. which makes it OK for all streams. Broad brush management. In fact, they think we could afford to have more wild trout harvested before we would notice.

So, since our affinity for wild trout is not biological...it must be social...there is that word again....and since its social, it requires activism to initiate the social campaign or prove the science otherwise.

Here's yer sign....

 

[FarmerDave]

Very well said Maurice.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

except!
when those stockers fed on young of the year brookies. i would like to see data of wild young of the year fish before stocking and after stocking.

actually someone said once:
"Brookies have one thing going for them in the eastern US that no other trout species does: rabid enthusiasts who wish to turn back the pages of history and glorify them over other trout to the detriment of the fisheries."

the thing they dont have going for them is anglers that demand and cant live without stocking for the "precious" first day. all this for there own "social" reasons to the detriment of the fisheries.

heres thier sign!

 

[RRR]

FarmerDave, I wasn't upset by what you said. No apology needed. Just wanted to make it clear to everyone that I was only in favor of putting up the wild trout signs where there already were Commission signs. While I certainly agree with you that signs deface the landscape, I believe that the majority of meet hunters only fish areas where the signs are posted which keeps many of them from venturing into sections of the same stream which may contain only wild trout. A case in point is a stream I fished a few days ago. Some of the stream is stocked and has the signs and part is not stocked and has no signs. I fished the unstocked section and saw very few boot prints, etc. to indicate that it is getting much pressure. In about 3 hrs. of fishing I caught 13 wild browns all of which were legal size. Two of them were 12 inchers and two more were solid 14 inchers. Best day I've had yet this year on wild trout , particularly from a size standpoint. Had so much fun I went back the next day and fished a stretch that is stocked, has signs, and many bootprints. Conditions were same both days. I fished about half a mile of the stocked stretch and caught one 4 in. wild fish and rolled another small one. Not a scientific study by any means, but I think it is a good indicator.