Little J No More

To add to what I said. May be trout could be managed like our snook leaving the other more populated fish like, blue gills to the meat hunters.

PS. I picked blue gills out of the air I dont want to ruffle any feathers with BG Unlimited members.
 
salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
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.
Click to expand...

Sal, listen to what you are saying. Are you saying we don't have proper regulations now? The way the regulations are now, you will not see a single population of trout eliminated because of over harvest. Don't get me wrong, I don't think the regs are perfect, but they do conserve the resource without outright protection.
 
what expense to others? did i ever say all streams should be catch and release? did i ever say harvesting on a minimal level is bad?
i dont think your gonna get very far trying to convince me that it doesnt effect the populations at all. and i think you belive it too. you just wont say it. do you think its bad to post about wild streams giving away thier size and location. if harvest isnt a factor then why dont we do it?

all im trying to say is the regs need changed to help protect wild trout....not limit other fisherman to c&r only.
i think it is unfair and rather rude of you to automatically assume im being selffish and trying to prove a point that only benifits me. i care about our resources not the fisherman. not my interest, not your intrests and not anyother fishermans interest.
 
no they dont famerdave. 5 a day and at seven inches? you think that protects the resource without outright protection?
i dont. but im only one person.
 
I think that in the interest of the fishery, which you state is your only concern, you should stop fishing altogether. Let the fish live the way the Good Lord intended-- free from molestation by humans and their feathers and hooks.
 
now your just being ridiculous jack. since you assume so much with me....im going to assume you dont care about our fisheries with the amount i passion i do. im done with you.

heres your proof that the regs dont protect the fishery.
Article From Michigan
according to this article. brook trout mature and breed at age 2 or 3. now

http://www.patrout.org/wttrout.htm
according to this a 2 year old brook trout is only around 4 inches
while a 3 year old is at 7 inches. then it would be easy to figure that a 10 inch trout can breed.
keep those fish...they dont breed. that means less young of the year. that means less fish in the future. less breeding and the chain continues.
 
crap the one link didnt work. granted big sping is that example but i think you can get the point.
 
Passion is something you got all over me, that is plain.
 
im sorry did i read something?

heres a link that shows, now it says southeastern united states, thats states how stocked rainbows have damaged brook trout populations.
http://groups.msn.com/PennsylvaniaOutdoors/yourwebpage1.msnw
 
Jack – the State of Maryland adopted C&R regulations in the Savage River watershed (Jack - not far from where you live), to protect wild trout, brook trout in particular. Their studies showed that populations were low because of over harvest, especially in areas of easy access to fisherman.

SF – Brook trout were protected (no fishing allowed for years) in designated areas in the Smokey Mountain National Park (Jack- where you fished a few weeks ago). The ban was lifted on many streams since it was determined that it had no impact on the population, because annual mortality rate of trout was found to be 70%.

Jack and SF – you’re both wrong, and you’re both right………….it depends on the stream.
 
Actually the C & R regs on the Savage are not on "the watershed," but on a short stretch of stream below the dam, unless that has changed in the last year or two. Speaking of the Smokies, except for the tackle limitations-- artificial, single hook only-- the trout in the Park are not restricted by C & R regs, the limit is 5 I think and size of 7 inches. The streams were full of wild fish. We didn't keep any, but if we had, I doubt we would have ruined it for everyone else. And I take issue with you claiming I "am wrong" without specifying what you think I "am wrong" about. I made all my statements about PA wild trout streams and what respectable studies (of which I am aware) have shown.
 
JackM wrote:
Some people surely argue just for the sake of argument, but I'm not gonna admit who does that. However, it seems to me after years of this same argument wearing ever different clothing, that anglers who do not enjoy keeping any part of their catch seem to have trouble grasping how C&R regulations might impact the recreational value of fishing to others who do like to harvest, whether always or occasionally. It does not benefit this other type of angler in the least to have more and bigger fish that he or she is required to return to the stream unharmed, not by choice, but by force of law. Amen.
Click to expand...

Jack,

Man this post has been busy today...

To qualify your quoted post above...I would just say that I agree and the folks who like to harvest can just DEAL WITH IT!.

See, What I cannot grasp is that while my releasing a trout gives another an opportunity to harvest...their harvesting give me no chance of catching that same fish. Thats what stocked trout are for...Primarily.

C&R regs or special regs in general are such a minority overall. They provide a variety for different users. Something the F&BC certainly trys to cater to. If that happens to ruffle a few feathers who feel fishing REQUIRES harvest. Tough! There is no difference between the two being self serving...its just my way gives everyone more opportunity....theirs takes it away.

I DO NOT believe all waters should be this way...I even believe there could/should/can be some harvest...but I also believe there should be places where harvest is restricted or eliminated...Lets face it, it is a fish population booster...and economic magnet.

Maurice
 
Maurice, I have no problem with reserving certain sections of waters for C & R. I don't see where anything I have said belies the contrary. I don't have any problem adding more waters either. I just think that putting the decision in the hands of people who can understand, appreciate and respect the perspective of the angler that enjoys creeling all or part of his catch is fairer overall than putting these decisions in the hands of someone who derives full pleasure from fishing without harvest and doesn't care whether people who feel differently have a worthwhile recreational experience.
 
afishanado (i know i said this before, but great handle!)
you are right in saying its the watershed. that is most important.

maurice, great post!
 
Jack,

“You are wrong” was actually written for effect – but you ARE wrong if you believe that no scientific evidence supports the fact that over harvest by fisherman does not effect the population of trout IN SOME CASES. Check out the MD regulations, the C&R regualtions for the entire waershed went into effect this year. I posted a link to the MD site with the details during one of these endless arguments about harvest and wild fish on this board a few months ago.

Jack I believe that harvest is not a big factor in most wild trout fisheries in PA. But it probably is a factor on some. Stricter regulations would improve fishing on some waters. If read the exchange with Mike from the PFBC about Hay Creek in Berks County, he admitted that the creek is ideal for wild fish and special regulation, but many groups oppose any SRs. I can understand and except that. I believe, as I have written many times that economics, not our whining, will shift the PFBC focus to less stocking and the reliance on self sustaining fish populations (wild fish).
 
Maurice, I have no problem with reserving certain sections of waters for C & R. I don't see where anything I have said belies the contrary. I don't have any problem adding more waters either. I just think that putting the decision in the hands of people who can understand, appreciate and respect the perspective of the angler that enjoys creeling all or part of his catch is fairer overall than putting these decisions in the hands of someone who derives full pleasure from fishing without harvest and doesn't care whether people who feel differently have a worthwhile recreational experience.
Click to expand...
which is exactly one of the problems with the laws in place. there are not many sport fisherman(flyfisherman) in the pfbc ranks. the laws and regs are made to cater to the angler that likes to harvest. then we see posts and agruements about wild fish. putting it in the hands of ONLY people who see the harvesting point of view isnt any better. it should be a 50/50 panel.
 
JackM wrote:
Maurice, I have no problem with reserving certain sections of waters for C & R. I don't see where anything I have said belies the contrary. I don't have any problem adding more waters either. I just think that putting the decision in the hands of people who can understand, appreciate and respect the perspective of the angler that enjoys creeling all or part of his catch is fairer overall than putting these decisions in the hands of someone who derives full pleasure from fishing without harvest and doesn't care whether people who feel differently have a worthwhile recreational experience.
Click to expand...

Thats why a commission makes the rules...and we/they provide acitvism toward our wishes. the problem lies in thinking that this forum has more weight than it does. It doesn't.

It puzzles me that your "crazyness" or "craze" (is that a word), in the name of equality, does not bother you internally because of your interest in utilizing the very things your arguments berate.

Hypocritical maybe...crazy, no.

Maurice
 
Nice deer, Dave. I didn't get any deer this year, but two years ago I got three doe so I'm still in a bit of venison chili.....somewat of a staple in my house. Mexi-corn is the key.

Bill
 
Oh BTW Dave, what did you do to make the average wild bluegill bigger in your pond and enhance your fishing experience?
 
Dear OhioOutdoorsman,

I'm going to go out on a limb and answer for Dave and say that he improved the bluegill fishing by HARVESTING some of them. :-D

Regards,
Tim Murphy :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top