Little J No More

[trubski]

troutbert wrote:
What alternative are you suggesting for the Little J? That would both allow for some harvest and maintain a good population, including the larger ones?

That's a good question, and I don't really have a suggestion. It's true that the trophy regs were a problem. For a while, you could catch all the 11 or 12 inchers you wanted, but you hardly saw anything bigger. From a conservation point of view, the basic issue is too much pressure and there is probably no other way but CR to resolve that.

I don't really have an agenda for the river, CR is probably the best solution, but it has changed it for me. I should point out, too, that I didn't suggest 'culling' for the good of the fish population. My point is just a vague, poorly articulated sense that something important is lost when the blood is completely removed from the sport.

I used to fish some private water on Spruce a few years ago. There were some honking fish in it and it was fun ... for a while. But it was kind of weird, too. Many of the fish had been caught and released so many times they didn't even act like real fish anymore. I remember slipping and falling in a small pool and then not 5 minutes later hooking a 22 inch rainbow barely a rod length away from me. A truly wild fish would have been in the next county so it was hard to be too proud about it.

As someone pointed out, I'm just leaving room for the rest of you guys And it's been good, too, to get onto some new water and really learn it.

 

[FarmerDave]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
yep taters feel pain :-D
yes jack they should. im tired of people thinking that it is so darn important to harvest trout. its ridiculous. you mean to tell me that people cant have fun fishing unless they kill a trout? then why not allow netting or snagging them. ah, because that wouldnt be sporting and would have no recreational value. or would it? i mean if killing trout means recreation then why not :roll:
its because of sport only anglers that fight so dang hard to help trout ...that the big fish are there to catch! not because of harvesters who fight so dang hard to keep fish. if they keep them all there wont be any to catch....bottom line.

Wow!!! Although I agree with what you are saying, I think it is preaching to the choir. Even the first guy said he rarely keeps trout.

Now the Amish on the other hand... To them, C&R is a waste of time. They keep everything they catch, and what they don't eat becomes fertilizer. Somebody needs to convince them that carp are good eating.

 

[JackM]

And the honesty was refreshing. I thought I was going to have to argue to get the admissions that were "between the lines."

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

I remember slipping and falling in a small pool and then not 5 minutes later hooking a 22 inch rainbow barely a rod length away from me. A truly wild fish would have been in the next county so it was hard to be too proud about it.

and if people would be allowed to keep it...it would have been it the next county in a frying pan ;-)
thanks farmer dave and jack i think that might be the first time anyone ever said they agree with me without a pm =)

 

[Wulff-Man]

trubski wrote:
I used to fish some private water on Spruce a few years ago. There were some honking fish in it and it was fun ... for a while. But it was kind of weird, too. Many of the fish had been caught and released so many times they didn't even act like real fish anymore. I remember slipping and falling in a small pool and then not 5 minutes later hooking a 22 inch rainbow barely a rod length away from me. A truly wild fish would have been in the next county so it was hard to be too proud about it.

Now THAT I can understand. I don't know what the answer to that issue is. The SRC type of water is pretty ridiculous, but I understand that you fear this can happen on other popular C&R water. I guess as long as the fish populations are high enough to overcome the fishing population, at least the same fish won't be getting caught 3 time a day. But the problem is the fishing population, not the C&R regulations. If there are that many fishermen and no C&R regs, you either won't have many fish to catch (if a lot are being kept), or they will be "tame" (if a lot are being released). The fish on Spring Creek are still a lot fun to fish for, in my opinion, even though they are heavily fished. I think it's because there are enough of them that they aren't caught too repetitively.

 

[thedude1534]

First, in terms of taking away C&R reg areas: I don't mind the principal of harvesting wild trout. However, if you closed off all special regs which promote catch and release, almost all the fish in those areas would be dead in a year. The reason why they are C&R is because they are in heavily fished areas, and the PFBC would like to have at least some permanant wild/holdover population in that area.

The fact is, im sure that the people who harvest on this board do it fairly infrequently, and when they do, they are responsible, and have no intentions on making a dent in the wild trout population. However, all of you seem to be fairly intellegant people. For every one of you, there are 50 other a**holes who, given the opportunity to harvest, will exploit any opportunity they have to take every fish out of the stream. Humans are very fallable when it comes to preserving their natural environment.

Don't beleive me? Look what we did to the Buffalo, look at how we almost destroyed Pennsylvania streams with pollution, look at how colonists caused the erradication of several North East U.S. predators, which is causing whitetail overpopulation spread across almost every East coast state. Look even at opening weekend, you have 15 spinner/bait fisherman hovering over a hole where stock truck tracks are still fresh. If you took away all special regs that limited the harvest of trout, I am sure many of you would be responsible about it, but MANY MANY more people would exploit the chance to harvest wild trout in plentiful, and heavily fished waters.

Second, there is the issue with C&R killing fish because people don't know how to play/handle them right. I agree that a lot of people do not know how to handle/play trout, and unfortulately, it results in their deaths. However, even with the 5-10% mortality rate of catch and release, its still much much better than 100% of harvesting....So I say we keep the C&R areas. It may not be ideal, but you have to think of the big picture, and that is: with the increasing amount of anglers, and basic human nature, you will need to put up with some non-ideal methods to preserve fish.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

thedude,

id like to see a bigger picture of that fish you are holding. looks like a big wild brown with a huge mouth. am i right?

 

[thedude1534]

It's a Wild Brown from the Davidson in North Carolina. Got him on a #20 micro egg. Your right about the big mouth, it was a large male so the bottom jaw was huge. I'll send you a PM of the real pic when I get home tonight.

 

[govtmule]

20fish/30years = .67 fish/year
seems like a drop in the ocean if you ask me, by your logic you should be taking more! when people talk about limits and how many fish per angler are taken i think that may be extreme...if i caught 6-8 fish everytime out i'd be ecstatic...just my 2cents.

jeff

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

thanks dude...i figured he was wild! :-D nice catch. ya please send me the pic i always wondered everytime i saw your avatar what the magnificant fish must look like. :-D

 

[FarmerDave]

Dude, I don't think anyone is advocating removal of C&R regulation on all streams. I don't think anyone is advocating removing those regs from the Little J, either. I think a couple of you have read into this too far. I am one of the people who said I usually avoid fishing special regulations areas. However, I think they are a good thing for the most part. It gives the yuppies a place to fish. i spend my days around yuppies, I don't need to go fishing with them :lol: Seriously, I don't have a problem with the fish commission selections. they are doing a good job. just don't tell Mike.

Now, about your reference to human's record on preserving our natural environment. We usually learn from our mistakes. When was the last time you ever heard of a species going extinct twice. :-D OK, That was another joke (a bad one). However, I feel we are doing a much better job of it than we have in the past. Whitetail deer were vertually exterpated from PA at the same time as their predators. They were to the point where they had to be reintroduced from Mich. It's true!. We now have more deer than at any time before. Wild turkey are another success story. And lets talk about trout. There are probably more wild trout in PA streams now than there were 75 years ago. There are certainly more streams that hold trout than there was back then. Without trees, you don't have many trout. There are now more trees in PA then there was a century ago. The Allegheny National Forest? When it was created in 1923, it was nicknamed the Allegheny Brush-patch, because their weren't any trees left. It grew back quickly because there were no deer, but that is another story. Anyway, humans do often learn from thier mistakes. I do believe the PF&BC study that showed that the majority of angers who fish for wild trout practice C&R.

 

[Wulff-Man]

I do believe the PF&BC study that showed that the majority of angers who fish for wild trout practice C&R.

I believe it too. I just don't believe that the conclusion should be that wild trout streams need no additional protection from overharvest.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

well said... in fact they need more protection.

 

[Wulff-Man]

FarmerDave wrote:
Dude, I don't think anyone is advocating removal of C&R regulation on all streams. I don't think anyone is advocating removing those regs from the Little J, either. I think a couple of you have read into this too far.

I don't agree: "What really bothers me are the catch and release regulations….. I think blanket catch and release regulations are wrong."

 

[FarmerDave]

Wulff-Man wrote:

FarmerDave wrote:
Dude, I don't think anyone is advocating removal of C&R regulation on all streams. I don't think anyone is advocating removing those regs from the Little J, either. I think a couple of you have read into this too far.

I don't agree: "What really bothers me are the catch and release regulations….. I think blanket catch and release regulations are wrong."

Now I'm confused. Maybe it was in my wording, because you and I seem to rarely disagree on this type of subject.

I think "blanket" C&R regs are wrong too, but i don't have a problem with them on select stream sections that have the potential for large trout and also have excessive fishing pressure.

 

[thedude1534]

FarmerDave:

I probably should have phrased my comment a little bit better. When I talked about people destroying their environment, I meant when we do not regulate hunting/fishing/construction/pollution, etc. The reason why things are getting better is because of strict regulations which don't allow people to do whatever they want to to our natural wildlife and resources without considering the consequences. The comments you have made strengthen this argument.

I'm not too sure of your definition of a yuppie, but I figure what you mean is someone who fishes with a large wallet, no ears, and a big mouth. If thats the case, I love fishing with them! It's always a good ego boost when I'm catching fish left and right, while the people with $1000 rods and more flybox's than I have fingers are complaining about getting skunked.

 

[Wulff-Man]

FD, you said that you didn't think anyone was advocating removal of C&R regs. I was quoting Trubski. That's what he said in his original post, which as far as I'm concerned means he is advocating removal of C&R regs. Sorry for the confusion, I should have been clearer about what I was saying.

 

[Wulff-Man]

thedude1534 wrote:
I'm not too sure of your definition of a yuppie, but I figure what you mean is someone who fishes with a large wallet, no ears, and a big mouth.

....with a rod in one hand and a cell phone in the other while loudly discussing their latest big sale.

 

[FarmerDave]

Wulff-Man wrote:
FD, you said that you didn't think anyone was advocating removal of C&R regs. I was quoting Trubski. That's what he said in his original post, which as far as I'm concerned means he is advocating removal of C&R regs. Sorry for the confusion, I should have been clearer about what I was saying.

Now i see. thanks. On the other hand, Trubski also went on to say this in a later post. "I don't really have an agenda for the river, CR is probably the best solution, but it has changed it for me." That is why I said i didn't think anyone in this thread was advocating removing the C&R from that stream. I still could be wrong, but I'll bet the numbers are small.

 

[FarmerDave]

thedude1534 wrote:
FarmerDave:

I probably should have phrased my comment a little bit better. When I talked about people destroying their environment, I meant when we do not regulate hunting/fishing/construction/pollution, etc. The reason why things are getting better is because of strict regulations which don't allow people to do whatever they want to to our natural wildlife and resources without considering the consequences. The comments you have made strengthen this argument.

I'm not too sure of your definition of a yuppie, but I figure what you mean is someone who fishes with a large wallet, no ears, and a big mouth. If thats the case, I love fishing with them! It's always a good ego boost when I'm catching fish left and right, while the people with $1000 rods and more flybox's than I have fingers are complaining about getting skunked.

Good point dude. Without regulations, we would probably screw it up again.

The yuppie thing was a joke, but if I were serious... I have nothing against the expensive gear or anyone who can afford them. I just can't see myself paying more for a fly rod than I would for a good chainsaw. ;-) The no ears and big mouth are on the money though.