Improving Wild Trout Angling in PA

Question for NickR..... If you close the stream from 10/15 - 11/15 so the fish can spawn undisturbed, how easy is are the redds to avoid when there's lower flows and leaf litter? Likely that you won't see them. It's not like they hatch out in 30 days. Close known spawning areas or you'll have yahoos raping redds like they do to the feeders at Raystown Lake.

Zak my man, since you obviously didn't read the link posted regarding the study in Maine, here's another one for you to read and below is a blog from the Stillwater Fly Shop. Enjoy.

http://www.joshuabergan.com/spawners.php

A great article from the Stillwater Fly Shop:
There has been a disturbing trend lately of posts, pictures and mentions of people fishing to trout that are lying on redds and how to do it effectively. The average knucklehead knows how easy it is to catch a trout in the throes of passion. Unfortunately, spawning season is seen by some fishermen as a time to pillage big fish that are seldom seen and even harder to catch.

spawning-browns....So what’s the big deal? The big deal is the huge amount of stress placed upon trout as they succumb to the instinct to reproduce. Mother Nature has a unique knack of making reproduction a difficult proposition for many species including the Rainbow and Brown trout. Challenging reproduction assures that only the strongest members of the gene pool are able to pass on their superior traits. The physical toll taken on trout during the spawn is incredible, often leading to the death of mating fish. Still, there are those anglers who continue to delude themselves by rationalizing their ethics. Hypocritically using “catch-and-release” as their mantra in an attempt to placate their detractors has become the norm in many fishing forum and social media posts.

Imagine piling rocks the size of basketballs into a mound that is six feet tall. Oh, by the way, you have to dig them out of a stream bottom using only your rear end. Remember also that there are a multitude of creatures that want to eat you while you are doing this task in such an exposed fashion. Sounds next to impossible doesn’t it? Spawning ends up being impossible and deadly in many cases without the help of rapacious anglers. Understanding the motives of fishermen who inhibit reproduction for the very resource that most claim to conserve and protect is easy, combatting them is much more of a quandary.

Rainbows start moving into the shallows as early as the end of February to search for less current and clean gravel to pile into future hatching environs for their eggs. Brown trout are on a reverse schedule, often beginning to dig redds in early October as the water cools in the Autumn. Females do all of the heavy lifting for the most part and the constant scraping and digging takes its toll on their bodies. The most visible injuries are those caused by bacterial and fungal infections. Normally, fish have a layer of protective slime on their bodies. As the female digs and piles rocks this layer is scraped away. The loss of this protection enables microbes to easily attack the scales and flesh of the fish.

While the ladies are setting up the nursery the guys are busy doing guy things. They muscle up, developing kyped jaws as weapons for use in vicious duels with other males over females and their redds. More importantly, the fierce jaws help protect the redd and his mate from interlopers. Battle scars, bites and scrapes aren’t uncommon in these scraps to determine the genetic hierarchy. Once again infection can find a home in these wounds and it isn’t uncommon to see the aftermath of spawning on a trout’s body for months afterwards on both the males and females.

Often just catching a fish in the spawn will cause a release of milt(sperm) or eggs because of the fish’s instinct to reproduce. Situations that stimulate survival instincts will trigger these premature releases of spawn, effectively causing the loss of thousands of eggs or the ability to fertilize. Only 0.5-2% of all hatched eggs make it to adulthood so losing one spawning fish to death or its milt or eggs can have a substantial impact on a fishery.

Imagine the detrimental consequences that just two anglers fishing a spawning bed with 15 redds could possibly have on an entire river. For example, if they catch 20 fish between them with an average weight of 2lbs, two of which eventually die, two prematurely drop their eggs and three squirt their milt. These anglers have effectively prevented the possibility of 11,200 eggs or more from hatching. If you do the, simple math figuring a low survival rate of 0.5%, these two anglers will have prevented 56 adult trout from coming into the ecosystem. Imagine if the fish were larger and were laying twice or three times as many eggs how many eventual adult fish would be lost. This is not accounting for loss of eggs that these two anglers would have destroyed from wading across these “imaginary” redds. Extrapolations and assumptions can easily be made about how much impact that larger numbers of anglers have when fishing to spawning fish on a stream or river system.

Ultimately it comes down to ethics and conscience. Does your ego demand a picture of you holding a large fish be spread across the internet or posted on the local fly shop’s wall? Is this worth possibly killing the trout or destroying its ability to reproduce? Finally; is fishing to spawning trout worth the eventual degradation of the fishery to the point of decreased counts, smaller size and eventual re-regulation? This is your decision to make as an angler and hopefully as a conservationist.
 
I agree 100 percent of what you say Kray. Was just going with the soft cell approach. I'd love to see more protective regs.
 
Kray, I don't think anyone is arguing with you that it isn't the right thing to do or it will have a positive impact. At the end of the day as long as humans are on this earth we will have a negative impact on the state of other animals. We pollute, destroy and repeat. So you can come up with every scenario possible and the answer is yes we will have a negative impact. But each of us only have a few good years of fishing before we are old, disabled or dead so why the hell would we want to cut into those years? Its like having millions of dollars and living like a miser.

I'm 32 years old, do people realize I only have about 20-30 sulphur seasons left and I'll be done? And only about 10 of them are left where my feet and vision/balance won't hinder me?

and "Zak" for my sanity please change your screen name on here. I always think people are talking to me and that I wrote your posts!!!
 
I mostly stayed out of this, but decided to add a couple more cents.

Kray,

I read parts of the article that you pasted and glanced at the one you linked most recently. I saw a fair amount of emotional as well as a few assumptions not substantiated with science, or statistical analysis. I especially liked the part about rolling basketball size boulders with my butt.

Here is an example of unsupported assumption. Lets assume survival rate to adulthood is .5 to 2% (That might even be on the high side but lets go with that). If I kill one spawning female, it will NOT have substantial or even measurable impact on the overall survival rate to adulthood unless the stream has a whole lot of other issues. It just doesn't work that way.

Most of the mortality occurs in the egg and yoke stages. That is why they produce so many. The trout produce way more than the stream can support. Some die simply because another trout dislodged them while building another redd.

Now, if number of eggs was actually small, with high survival rate to adulthood, then killing a hen or three would have an impact.

Why does closing the season for bass work? Because bass protect their young. Trout do not. I fact, trout will eat their young.

That said, I don't fish for spawning trout. It's my choice. Some day I might make a different choice, then again maybe not. But I don't feel the choice should be taken away from me because of assumptions, or emotion. Scientific reasons, fine, but not assumptions or emotion.

Back to the OP,

It is clear to me that the big three are as follows.

1. Habitat improvement.
2. Habitat improvement.
3. Habitat improvement.

Disclaimer: Habitat improvement does not include things to make it more fish-able.
 
FarmerDave wrote:
I mostly stayed out of this, but decided to add a couple more cents.

Kray,

I read parts of the article that you pasted and glanced at the one you linked most recently. I saw a fair amount of emotional as well as a few assumptions not substantiated with science, or statistical analysis. I especially liked the part about tolling basketball size boulders with my butt.

Here is an example of unsupported assumption. Lets assume survival rate to adulthood is .5 to 2% (That might even be on the high side but lets go with that). If I kill one spawning female, it will NOT have substantial or even measurable impact on the overall survival rate to adulthood unless the stream has a whole lot of other issues. It just doesn't work that way.

Most of the mortality occurs in the egg and yoke stages. That is why they produce so many. The trout produce way more than the stream can support. Some die simply because another trout dislodged them while building another redd.

Now, if number of eggs was actually small, with high survival rate to adulthood, then killing a hen or three would have an impact.

Why does closing the season for bass work? Because bass protect their young. Trout do not. I fact, trout will eat their young.

That said, I don't fish for spawning trout. It's my choice. Some day I might make a different choice, then again maybe not. But I don't feel the choice should be taken away from me because of assumptions, or emotion. Scientific reasons, fine, but not assumptions or emotion.

Back to the OP,

It is clear to me that the big three are as follows.

1. Habitat improvement.
2. Habitat improvement.
3. Habitat improvement.

Disclaimer: Habitat improvement does not include things to make it more fish-able.

+1
 
3oh4 wrote:

I'm 32 years old, do people realize I only have about 20-30 sulphur seasons left and I'll be done? And only about 10 of them are left where my feet and vision/balance won't hinder me?

I think I speak for all of us who are over age 50 when I say... BITE ME! ;-)

 
Seriously FarmerDave, it depresses me every time hatch season is over and I realize I can never get it back. Life's to short not to fish!
 
I did a thread a while back realizing that I probably have 10-15 more Hendrickson, Sulphur and March Brown hatches before it becomes time to pack up the gear.

FD,
The 2 things I posted were passionate fishermen and not scientific studies. I may have read it wrong in the Maine study posted but I think it said the fish suffered a significantly higher mortality when caught during or just after the spawn. I'll use the example that you have 5 miles of river and there's only 5 spawning pairs of fish in that section. Fishermen catch 7 of the 10 fish while they are building redds / jockeying for position. If 2 of those fish die from stress / exhaustion in the next 12 hours and 3 more die in the following 24 hours, you absolutely had a huge impact on the river. The angler released the fish and would have no idea what transpired 12-36 hours later.

I completely agree with Improving habit for the fish....not for the anglers. That's step #1. I also will stand by the idea that known spawning areas (+150 yard buffer) should be closed for extended periods to allow the best chance of undisturbed reproduction.

Hell, the top end of the ditch at big spring was closed to fishing as it was labeled 'nursery water'. Did not getting to fish that chunk of stream change anyone's life or require counseling to get beyond that road block in life? Of course not.
 
I see so many saying about habitat...IF habitat isn't good the way nature made it then I'm guessing the stream really isn't a trout stream. Now if man ruined the stream then yes habitat improvements should be done to fix what man did. I live in central/north central PA where habitat is darn near perfect for wild trout on many streams yet trout populations aren't where they should be.

I am still blaming harvesting regulations as the biggest impact to the streams I fish. People can give me all the data and whatnot they want but I'm the one fishing the stream 50+ days a year (That's down from well over 100 days a year a while back. Heck my brother even had a streak of 65 days straight fishing BFC). Heck we even know some of the fish we catch on a regular basis (one tiger trout I caught 3 times this year). The PAFBC should be paying me to do their studies on fish populations on certain waters. Its not too hard to tell when populations are up or down. We see the people on the streams, we know the people, we know the impact people make. A few bad anglers can ruin a fishery. It can happen. Every area has some of these anglers and some are more greedy then others.

Maybe this isn't the same problem all over the state. It sounds like a lot of the state must not have very good trout waters since they feel the habitat needs improved so much or people are trying to make water hold trout that really isn't meant to be. Just my observation from this post. I won't lie most stream habitat improvements make me sick from a visual perspective. Its so obvious its man made. If they can make it not look so man made it might not be a bad thing but we can't be trying to make every stream a trout stream. Some streams are just for minnows and chubs, bass, suckers etc and we have to admit it.


Also last rant...I'm still saying that trout waters get the least amount of pressure during the spawn due to other activities that time of year. I don't feel that humans impact the spawn enough to really need a closed season. Would it be nice if it was closed? I quite honestly wouldn't care either way. I rarely have time to fish during October to November anyways. December on though there should be no issue fishing.
 
Kray, that a boy. We talked you down from a 6 month closure on almost a full length stream to a 150 yard buffer zone during reproduction period. I personally can live with that.

BigJohn I think it's to the point where we can always use the "Global Warming" excuse when in doubt that we messed a stream up. Eroded banks? Global Warming. Warmer water temps? Global Warming. Sewage or oil pipeline adding silt? Global Warming.
 
BigJohn I think it's to the point where we can always use the "Global Warming" excuse when in doubt that we messed a stream up. Eroded banks? Global Warming. Warmer water temps? Global Warming. Sewage or oil pipeline adding silt? Global Warming.

I don't quite buy the whole global warming thing. I think everything goes in cycles. This summer was not all that hot and lots of rain. Honestly it seems like summer disappeared very fast and went into fall quick this year.
 
I was being sarcastic. I agree with you.
 
4. Global warming will be a long term threat, despite above posters choosing to ignore science because the weather in their backyards is cooler than usual for a few months. Solution...establish riparian buffers now to shade the streams.

 
Let's not turn this into a global warming thread. The next post may say that lining spawners and stomping through redds can be offset by driving a smart car to fish.
 
3oh4 wrote:
I was being sarcastic. I agree with you.

lol thanks for agreeing...sometimes sarcasm is hard to pickup in these things.
 
Hey moon1284 I think you have the right idea, and I'm not trying to take this way off line but it bugs me that in a thread where people are mentioning threats to wild trout, some are casually dismissing the biggest long term threat of all. However there are more important short term actions that better apply to the topic. Hopefully, this comment can be the end of that side-conversation.
 
Regarding the spawning closed season, I believe it's been discussed here before and Mike chimed in. Would be great if someone can link to that thread. I believe he said natural conditions that vary year to year can have a much bigger impact on spawning success than anglers fishing over them. With that said, I try to avoid fishing over spawners, and I don't wade through what looks like spawning areas. Can't hurt to be careful at that time of year, if everyone were knowledgeable about this issue we wouldn't need to consider a ban, but of course that's not reality. It would be nice if the majority of anglers understood enough about wild trout to make informed decisions and respect the resource...maybe someday
 
krayfish2 wrote:
I did a thread a while back realizing that I probably have 10-15 more Hendrickson, Sulphur and March Brown hatches before it becomes time to pack up the gear.

FD,
The 2 things I posted were passionate fishermen and not scientific studies. I may have read it wrong in the Maine study posted but I think it said the fish suffered a significantly higher mortality when caught during or just after the spawn. I'll use the example that you have 5 miles of river and there's only 5 spawning pairs of fish in that section. Fishermen catch 7 of the 10 fish while they are building redds / jockeying for position. If 2 of those fish die from stress / exhaustion in the next 12 hours and 3 more die in the following 24 hours, you absolutely had a huge impact on the river. The angler released the fish and would have no idea what transpired 12-36 hours later.

I completely agree with Improving habit for the fish....not for the anglers. That's step #1. I also will stand by the idea that known spawning areas (+150 yard buffer) should be closed for extended periods to allow the best chance of undisturbed reproduction.

Hell, the top end of the ditch at big spring was closed to fishing as it was labeled 'nursery water'. Did not getting to fish that chunk of stream change anyone's life or require counseling to get beyond that road block in life? Of course not.

Krayfish, I didn't read the study because I didn't disagree with the facts that were stated. 20 years ago I was firmly in the camp of, streams should be closed during the spawn. After numerous discussions on here, I have softened on that.

I have no doubt some wild trout populations would benefit from closure for a month or two during and right after the spawn. For example, places with reduced population due to various factors. Another would be streams with good population, but limited spawning habitat. Big Spring is a good example. But would it make sense to extend that to the average Class A, B, or C wild stream? Not in my opinion ... anymore.

In other words, I was speaking in general. Big Spring still suffers from human activities of the past. What's good fir Big Spring, might not be necessary for vast majority of wild streams.

 
KenU wrote:
How would you rank the top 3 things that you feel we need to do to improve (and encourage) wild trout angling in PA.

I haven't read the thread, so my answer is reflexive and pure:

To improve wild trout "angling" would require I rank access as numero uno.

To improve wild trout populations, I think that habitat would be primary. Among habitat features I would rank forage first, then water temperatures, then structural features of the stream.
 
fwiw and sarce w some va content:

https://eastcoastflyguy.wordpress.com/2014/10/26/the-brook-trout-spawn-controversy-does-fishing-have-a-negative-effect/
 
Back
Top