Little J No More

[JackM]

Incidentally, I educated myself about snapping turtles, and in season, you may take 15 daily if I read PA's regulations correctly. I would urge you to look at differing research on the reason brook trout do not thrive in some localities, rather than to accept the oft repeated allegation that blames population and size deficiencies on harvest. I have yet to see a valid study that proves that harvest is a significant issue.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

i have jack. and im not going to name them all. but what i do find is that here in the sepa region the streams on the natural repro list have bigger wild brookies than our class a streams......hmmm
maybe people going to class a and harvesting. you forget jack i read alot...dont think i havent looked into it.

beyond that dont belive everything you read.....though i read alot.
:-D
those studies are objective.....they arent going to blame thier regulations and stockings.

 

[JackM]

Could I bother you to name just one such study that finds harvest to be a significant limiting factor on population or size of brook trout in PA? I am always interested in being educated.

 

[Fredrick]

This debate would go alot faster if you guys would go to the chat part of the site :-D

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

has one ever been done?
no.
but look at history jack.....what were the regs in the past?
40 a day. then suddenly the fisheries declined and declined.
gee i wonder why? harvest maybe.
they have been going down ever since. i think thats enough proof itself. but if you think that harvest doesnt affect a wild trout stream i urge you to go to your local wild trout stream and keep as many fish as you can. you let me know how long until there isnt any left. then youll have your proof. its not rocket science or brain surgery. its common sense

 

[CaptMatt]

JackM wrote:
CaptMatt, I'm not sure what experience you have fishing for wild trout in PA, but it is definitely NOT true that large wild trout are lacking. This is the case, by-and-large in the Western third of the Commonwealth, but in the rest of the state, there are plenty wild streams with decent populations of 8-15 inch trout and a few bigger. We can argue whether there are "a lot" of such streams or "enough" of such streams, but I don't think it is possible to refer to them as "rare."

I grew up fly fishing in SW PA not far from you Jack. When I say grew up I mean grew up Fly fishing for trout. I agree with you about the western third of the state and I def agree that there are wild trout in PA. But I do not agree that the populations of wild trout that do exist are numerous enough to harvest a lot of. I admit I don’t have evidence to support this lets just call it a hunch. I think if we could quit screwing up many rivers ecologically, acid mine drainage, water usage etc... We could have a better fishery - Hard in a coal mining/steel mill state. I also truly believe that if these fisheries were loaded with wild trout as other states, we would not rely on stock trucks for our fishing leisure and would not have to argue about stocked fish.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

i think i might be done "trying to advocate" for wild trout on this site. it seems that some of you think that wild trout are indestructable.
stocking doesnt hurt there pops, harvest doesnt hurt thier pops, next youll tell me they can be handled out of the water for an hour, use barbed hooks and they wont die. you cant keep fish on the letort but thier population is pretty good. nothing to do with harvest though....you could keep all those beautiful fish and it wont matter.

 

[CaptMatt]

Sal, some not all. We can advocate for catch and release but we will never be able to say that you shouldn’t keep anything at all. You wont, and I don’t but it's not our right to keep others from doing it all we can do is educate and without "facts and numbers" its hard to get many to agree. In some places keeping wild fish does not harm the fishery because there are lots and lots of wild fish. PA is not one of those fisheries.

 

[Wulff-Man]

... And if harvest were allowed on Valley Creek, it wouldn't make much difference at all. (Sarcasm). But that's just being selfish, wanting people to release all the fish they catch. (Sarcasm) We should be generous, and let all those who chose to keep the fish, because they WANT to, keep them for their own enjoyment. Don't leave them for a whole lot of others to enjoy. (Sarcasm).

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

i never said we souldnt keep any ever. i just dont understand how it so hard to understand that harvest can hurt a population of trout.
did overharvest affect deer in pa.....sure did.
the great thing about fishing as compared to hunting is i can put the fish back. you cant shoot a deer and return it to the forest. dont think im against hunting. i dont do it, but my entire family does. all im saying is without proper regulations.....limiting harvest.....some of our fisheries can and will suffer.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

im curious jack.....you peeked my interest. without fear of being the "villian", do you harvest wild trout? if so how many?

 

[FarmerDave]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
... because i like snapper stew. and guess what you cant trap snapping turtles anymore. this forced my dinner table by law to change to other foods. but guess what.....i dealt with it.

Sal, you want snapping turtles? Come get some, but only if you eat them.

 

[JackM]

I have never kept and eaten a wild trout and have never knowingly harmed one mortally. I have released small wild trout that may have been injured in the process of hooking them and I'd bet as a result a few have died. I haven't kept any stocked trout. etc., either for about 8-9 years. However, I may decide at any time that I'd like to keep and eat a wild trout and if it is legal, it won't bother my conscience in the least to do so. And, this isn't because I don't have a conscience, it is because I believe that a limited harvest of trout from a self-sustaining population will do very little harm to the population and may even do it a little good.

 

[thedude1534]

This was mentioned waaaaay long ago, but Ohio talked about TU's advocation of eating wild salmon.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but the point of this is part of a pacific clean water act. If everyone gets salmon from farms, there is then no need to get them from the wild, which in turn give little financial motivation for any companies in the salmon buisness to protect the waters they live in. If you have all sold salmon being wild caught, people will need to protect the waters they swim in, in order to keep the business going. This, coupled with regulations for how much salmon can be harvested in a season, will both maintain a sustainable wild salmon population, and keep their waters free of pollution/developement. Granted this will cause the price of salmon to shoot up, but if you want to keep certain natural resources, you gotta learn to sacrifice.

The same motto could be applied to catch and release regs. Harvesting trout obviously makes more sense as a fundamental reason to fish. However, with the dense population of anglers who surround many of the states best fisheries, if you did not have catch and release regs, they would become graveyards. So, you gotta sacrifice some if you want fish to live in those places.

Personally, even though this would be economical suicide for the PFBC, I would like to see no stocking of any PA streams, and have statewide regulations of single hook, barbless ALO, and an increase in the promotion of wild trout populations. I do understand that this is a completely illogical idea, its just a fantasy of mine, so please don't spend 100 posts talking about how unrealistic it is.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

ya my grandfather used to make it. it is good! i hate dealing with them though. ive been attacked by a few. lucky enough to still have all my fingers and toes! one time a buddy of mine caught on while fishing a pond with me. we couldnt see what he was reeling in. the dock we were standing was falling into the water over time. as it got closer a black blur went from swimming right up on to the dock running full speed and hissing. right at us! for what ever reason....there was a shovel on that old dock. which i quickly grabbed and hit the turtle as hard as i could over his shell.
i cracked his shell the whole way across, killing that turtle. lucky for my friend who had fallen down in all the hubbub and probably would have gotten bitten. we ate him later that nite. pretty big turtle.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

it is because I believe that a limited harvest of trout from a self-sustaining population will do very little harm to the population and may even do it a little good.

then are you just playing devils advocate? sounds like you get it more than you lead on

 

[JackM]

And I'd like to add: I would agree that on your average unregulated wild trout stream, if 20 anglers all kept their daily creel limit for 30 days straight, they would most certainly harm the population. I do not believe that this happens at all in PA, but I have no doubt it does not happen in the epidemic proportions that some people would lead others to believe. The only studies I have seen seem to suggest that the harvest practices on most PA wild trout streams do not have a significant impact on either size or population density.

 

[CaptMatt]

Here’s a suggestion, not to compare apples to oranges but...

In FL each saltwater species has a different size requirement and season for harvest. The more populous fish have no closed season and only daily limits. http://www.floridasportsman.com/reference/regs_by_species/

The "less populated" fish like snook have certain windows during certain months when a fish of a slot size between 27-34 inches may be harvested. Snook in my area have been pounded so hard in recent years that my guide buddies who are native to the area say that this is the worst season for fishing snook ever. Why? To many anglers killing fish. So FL enacts a slot size and adjusts it according to studies that they are always doing. PA could do something similar to protect wild trout populations or should I say something more? I've seen discussion on increasing the size regulation. Now if the western third of the state has shotty wild trout pops why not do something about it? Of course its easy to manage trout from a computer screen just like if I coached the Steelers they would have been champs again. ha ha ha.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

now i can agree with your last two posts. i also dont think that harvesting of that magnitude goes on. but it only takes one person. some guy that lives in the hills suddenly discovers he really likes the taste of wild trout could destroy a stream. i just think a lower creel and bigger min length would help. and also wouldnt hurt the harvesters that bad. instead of 5 fish a day a 7 inches....make it 3 a day at 10 inches. almost same number of inches of fish.....almost same amount of meat. is this such a bad idea? in the process i belive they will catch more fish. more 7-9 inchers to go around. isnt catching fish fun also.

 

[JackM]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:

it is because I believe that a limited harvest of trout from a self-sustaining population will do very little harm to the population and may even do it a little good.

then are you just playing devils advocate? sounds like you get it more than you lead on

I am not "playing Devil's advocate." I am:

1. Trying to convince you and others to recognize that the regulations cannot and should not be drawn in a way to accomodate your interests at the expense of all others;

2. Trying to challenge you to provide support for the apparent underlying belief you and others have that harvest constitutes a significant factor limiting wild trout size and population density.

Sometimes I advocate positions that seem fair and reasonable to all persons, even if they might not be the most advantageous to me. Some people define that as insanity-- well, maybe I am just crazy like that.