Little J No More

[FarmerDave]

TimMurphy wrote:
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

That would have been my first guess. too. Well, you are wrong, and you are right.

It depends on which pond.

The pond that the BG in the picture came from? ... I have harvested a few Bluegills, but haven't really made a dent. I think the real reason it is producing large bluegills is that it is a relatively new pond so it hadn't been screwed up yet. It is very fertile with constant flow, and it has a healthy population of predators and prey. I've got pretty good balance. Lots of bass, and I also added channel catfish which eat more small fish than a lot of people think. This year however, I plan to harvest quite a few. I'm seeing large numbers of large bluegills, and I know it's time to take some out along with some of the bass and cats. I can remove a bunch without hurting the population, and it will probably help. There really wasn't too much management involved.

The pond in the woods is a whole different story. If any of you visit and fish that pond, you can keep all the sunfish that you want. In fact, don't throw any of them back that are under about 9 inches. If you don't want them, throw them in the woods. also, throw only the larger predators back. This policy has shown a huge improvement to this pond in two years time. There is at least one bass in there over 5 pounds. I saw him the other day.

There is quite a bit of literature on line for pond management, and you can manage your pond for large bluegills, or large bass.

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

:-o SHOCKING :-o

Thanks for answering my tongue in cheeck question. Assuming your farm ponds are not another corrupt PFBC study, I just wanted to point out that harvesting a small percentage of fish in a pond that has nutrition as its limiting factor may see an increase in average fish size by adding some harvesting and predation.

While this probably doesn't hold true for trout as much, especially on limestoners (which are more like your first pond), I wonder if some of the wild freestone streams actually might see an increase in average fish size with a little harvest. Fewer fish but larger fish = same biomass = better experience for the grip and grin trophy fisherman.

 

[FarmerDave]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
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.

Sal,

First of all, do you mind me abreviating your name as Sal, or would you prefer SF or something else?

Anyway, to answer your question... I think the regulations that we have do conserve wild trout without absolute protection. In the past 50 years, has there been one single stream where the population has been wiped out due to overharvest? The answer is no. They are successfully conserving the resource IMHO. The real question is, do they need more protection? My opinion is that in some cases maybe they do. that is why we have C&R for those streams. It must be handed per stream bases (like they do now), and not as a blanket regulation. I tend to think more along the lines of Jack M on this one. I feel that in a lot of streams that i fish, the trout are cropped near road accesses (although i can't prove it with a scientific study). But not when you get away from there, the fishing is better. As long as any harvest is allowed, that probably will not change much, but it doesn't effect entire populations.

The creel limit was lowered to 5 fish not all that long ago, and it would be a tough sell for the PF&BC to justify lowering it some more at this time. I'm not sure it is needed either. I would be for raising the minimum size limit to 8 inches. Other than fingerlings, they don't stock fish under that size, so it would give more protection for wild trout in all treams, including the approved trout waters. That would be a much easier sell. I've caught 8 inch trout in class C and D streams that you can jump across. i feel that they wouldn't be all that rare in larger streams if the limit were raised (but can't prove it with a scientific study).

I've suggested this idea on several occasion. what we need is for the approved trout streams to be even more attractive to the average meat angler than the unstocked streams. Why not raise the creel limit on approved streams. Or raise one and lower the other. say 6 and 4. Raising creel limits is an easy sell.

I don't think we are all that far apart on this. We both agree that C&R is needed on some streams, and I think we agree that it is not needed on all streams. It appears that is jack's opinion, too.

 

[FarmerDave]

OhioOutdoorsman wrote:
:-o SHOCKING :-o

Thanks for answering my tongue in cheeck question. Assuming your farm ponds are not another corrupt PFBC study, I just wanted to point out that harvesting a small percentage of fish in a pond that has nutrition as its limiting factor may see an increase in average fish size by adding some harvesting and predation.

While this probably doesn't hold true for trout as much, especially on limestoners (which are more like your first pond), I wonder if some of the wild freestone streams actually might see an increase in average fish size with a little harvest. Fewer fish but larger fish = same biomass = better experience for the grip and grin trophy fisherman.

Hmmm. It almost looks like we planned this out, but we didn't.

P.S. I didn't shoot a deer last year because i still had some of that big one in the freezer. He was well over 200 pounds (although i don't have a scientific study to prove it). then right after the last deer season ended, my refrigerator freezer in the garage crapped out, and i lost all but two or three packages that were in the big freezer. lost 3 or 4 pounds of wild jumbo shrimp, too. :-x My brother had gotten them right off the boat and brought them up from Texas.

 

[FarmerDave]

In the smokey Mountains where they protected the brook trout ... the reason they are in trouble is because of introduced non-native species. It wasn't from overharvest.

Truth is, the introduction fo brown trout in PA has caused more damage to the native trout than what overharvest has done. that couple with the PF&BC favoring the brown trout with their regulations.

 

[trubski]

Holy cr*p. This thread went from 6 to 9 pages overnight, while I was taking a few days off to fish, tie some flies and ... oh yeah, do some work.

Ohio, I'm afraid I left it up to you - sorry about that. I figured I'd better post again just to prove I'm not a troll after all, although if I were, I was pretty successful with this thread.

I have learned a lot from reading all your posts, this has been a great conversation. What strikes me most about it (after taking a couple of days off) is basically how similar all the points of view really are. I do - incidentally - agree with SF that unregulated harvest CAN damage a fishery. I think Maurice's post actually comes closest to my feelings about it:

"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".

My original post was really just a reflection on the fact that all of a sudden I found myself looking for new water after many years of fishing the LittleJ almost exclusively, and wondering why.

In quantifiable terms, there's no question that CR has been good for the LittleJ - there are more fish, they are bigger and at some point we'll be able to determine the real relationship between population and carrying capacity in that water, but that may be a while. The "economic magnet" M refers to is certainly true and that can be a good thing overall. For one thing, the economic gains tend to heighten awareness among local people of the value of a healthy trout stream - there's a direct incentive there. Combined with the big fuss over access that was recently resolved, I think it has had that effect.

But, as I've said, it tends to create the kind of fishing I personally don't really like all that much. I've never been comfortable in touristy places, I have personal reservations about the experience of mandated CR - despite the fact that I am a voluntary CR fisherman 99% of the time. And as the water is transformed into nationally known 'blue ribbon recreation only', well...

I put it all down to population, really. There's just too damn many people.

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

Truth is, the introduction fo brown trout in PA has caused more damage to the native trout than what overharvest has done. that couple with the PF&BC favoring the brown trout with their regulations.

Now that is something I think almost all of us can agree with.

Hmmm. It almost looks like we planned this out, but we didn't.

Well, I confess that I sort of knew the answer I was going to get. Sorry for using you in my ploy. My point was that hunters and fish harvesting/culling fisherman think a lot about and often have signifigant experience managing fish populations. If you don't take selectively, you'll have less meat of smaller fish in the future. In general, we're not stupid, illogical, and blindly boodthirsty and we do care deeply about the fish and game.

 

[Wulff-Man]

It is kind of interesting that, after all the heated and somewhat emotional debate, it looks like a lot of us are really not that far apart on the C&R issue. Both “sides” from what I can see ended up saying that they think C&R regs are appropriate in some situations but not all. Personally, I just think about streams like Spring and Valley, where C&R was “by accident” due to pollution, and look at the great fisheries that resulted. Why can’t we have more of them? Because it has to be forced by circumstance, so those who would oppose it can’t prevent it? But these streams provide a great fishing experience for a lot of anglers, they are very popular, why can’t we have more? There are other good streams around that could be just as popular, but, as Mike pointed out previously, there is so much opposition from some that it looks like it’s not going to happen. That’s a shame. It’s a shame that more people can’t enjoy fishing for good numbers of wild trout over 7 inches, or 10 inches for that matter. Because a lot of people would love it, and it would add to the number of people who appreciate wild trout.

As far as the smaller wild trout streams, I think a larger minimum size limit and/or a lower creel limit makes perfect sense to make them more enjoyable fisheries for the vast majority of C&R anglers (which has been shown by actual scientific studies) on these streams. And yes, I understand that this wouldn’t improve the numbers/size of fish on ALL of these streams, but as I have said a million times before, it wouldn’t affect many anglers (as shown by the actual scientific studies), but there ARE many streams that would be improved as far as numbers and size of trout. Including those near populated areas and those that may get cleaned out pretty well by just a few meat hunters.

Sal mentioned that the PFBC doesn’t have enough sport/flyfishers among their ranks. I don’t know that this is true, but it made me think about the WCO I met along the WB Perkiomen who was an avid flyfisher. We had a nice conversation, and he told me that he just saw a couple guys upstream at one of my favorite holes with stringers full of wild trout. His comment was “It’s a shame, but it’s legal.”

Maurice’s post to Jack about releasing vs. keeping trout was right on. It's pretty ironic how those who release trout so that others can enjoy them can be characterized as selfish, while we have to be so concerned about affecting those who keep them for themselves so that no one else can enjoy them. It seems all bass-ackwards to me. But I do appreciate Jack’s attempt to keep us aware that C&R regs have a negative impact on others.

 

[FarmerDave]

OhioOutdoorsman wrote:


Well, I confess that I sort of knew the answer I was going to get. Sorry for using you in my ploy. My point was that hunters and fish harvesting/culling fisherman think a lot about and often have signifigant experience managing fish populations. If you don't take selectively, you'll have less meat of smaller fish in the future. In general, we're not stupid, illogical, and blindly boodthirsty and we do care deeply about the fish and game.

the key word there is "selectively," and it doesn't matter if it is hunting of fishing.

Take hunting. they way things are done now, hunters typically want to harvest the biggest and healthiest buck thay can. This is not culling (per the definition of cul), and the result is smaller deer and lesser genetics. If there were natural predators, they would be culling the less healthy animals which improves the genetics.

Take the trophy farms. They cul a lot of deer to get those trophies. they harvest the inferior bucks (the ones with inferior genetics or bad health), and leave the best ones to grow into a trophy shooter. And they limit that harvest so the genetics are passed on. they also have to harvest a lot of does so the population does not get too big. In PA, the game commission has it half right. They have allowed more does to be taking which means a healthier herd. But the regulations also target the healthiest bucks for harvest. The current rules target the best bucks. Yea, there is a noticable improvement in quality bucks right now, but that is only from reducing the herd size. Selecting bucks for harvest based on antler size is not helping (but i am sure their scientific studies will report that it is). However, there is no way to manage the whole state like a trophy farm, so the rules are probably the best they can be.

As far as the trout go, the only way to effectively cull the herd for the purpose of improve size would be slot limits. There are a lot of problems with this. First of all, some streams simply can't produce as large of trout as others. You would need the slot limits to be stream dependant.

Secondly, a wild stream with mixed populations, a general slot limit would favor the Browns and Rainbows. Slot limits favor the larger species and no matter what Chaz says... Apples to apples, brook trout do not grow as big or as fast as browns.

 

[FarmerDave]

Wulff-Mann, I think the discussion has been quite civil throughout (compared to some other discussions).

I certainly wouldn't have a problem with adding a few more C&R only streams. I just don't want it on all wild streams.

 

[Wulff-Man]

OhioOutdoorsman wrote:
If you don't take selectively, you'll have less meat of smaller fish in the future.

I'm no expert, Ohio (even though I did take some ecology courses back in the stone ages, and I've stayed at a Holiday Inn Express), but I don't think this would apply to most of the wild trout streams in PA. I understand how it applies to bluegill in FarmerDave's pond.

In general, we're not stupid, illogical, and blindly boodthirsty and we do care deeply about the fish and game.

I don't think otherwise, and I don't think anyone else here does either. (Except for the "illogical" part, when it comes to being obligated to kill some trout to justify fishing ;-) ).

 

[trubski]

(Except for the "illogical" part, when it comes to being obligated to kill some trout to justify fishing ;-) ).

Logic has nothing to do with that
But that does make the point hard to explain or defend.

 

[Wulff-Man]

FarmerDave wrote:
Wulff-Mann, I think the discussion has been quite civil throughout (compared to some other discussions).

I do too. I just meant that there was some emotion behind the posts, but they were kept civil. That's a credit to the kind of guys that participate on this board. It's grown up quite a bit from the old days. There probably would have been death threats by now :-D (Although now that I think about it, someone did say something about wanting to kill someone, but I'm sure that was in the abstract and an attempt at satire ;-) )

 

[JackM]

My job is not done. I had a longer post, but the connection crashed, so I'll boil it down to this question:

Can anyone explain to me how releasing a fish back into the water benefits an angler who desires to harvest some or all of his catch if you prohibit that same angler from harvesting fish at all on the water to which you released said fish?

 

[Wulff-Man]

Well, if he desires to harvest just some of his catch, it benefits him in that the fish you release will be there for him to catch for the pleasure of catching them. If he desires to harvest all of his catch, then it doesn't benefit him at all, just all the many others who fish just for the pleasure of fishing, and who wouldn't have (m)any fish to fish for if they were harvested.

 

[Wulff-Man]

(Jack must have gone out to lunch. He NEVER lets anybody else have the last word :-D )

 

[JackM]

Well, one must make a valid point to deserve a response. I am pleased with the progress of the discussion and am glad to see you are learning so much.

 

[Wulff-Man]

[color=FF6600]OUCH![/color]

(That's not a word, so you get the last one Jack)

 

[CaptMatt]

This is a selfish conversation. The benefit of what angler likes what is not the important issue. Shouldn't the regs be determined by what's good or bad or sustainable for the fishery?

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

cattmatt i belive that was the point i was trying to make.