Monocacy looking good

  • Thread starter salvelinusfontinalis
  • Start date
JackM wrote:
I thought we were testing the theory that creeling at 14" is the limiting factor. If so, we should see the same effect by lowering the limit to 12". No, there are more ways to test the hypothesis than the proposal you suggest.
Click to expand...

I know...but if the stream doesnt have the habitat to grow fish larger than 14"....than the TT regs would work in this case by protecting the fish under 14". If it can grow higher populations of 14" or larger fish under C&R, then it may be a candidate for that type of regulation...if that is the goal...to have and grow a higher populations of larger fish.
 
salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
either way that wasent the main point i hoped for the post. Even though we all know these threads have a mind of thier own. These urban trout streams always amaze me. The stream is doing very well right now despite the regs.
Click to expand...

Agreed - while more fish >14 would be nice - it still is a jewel of a stream that continues to hold up given the environment endures (pressure, abuse, development etc).

Sometimes its nice to focus on the positives. Thanks for the reminder Sal.
 
JackM wrote: “Hmmm.....do I believe the state agency whose job duties, education and training involve drawing these conclusions or do I believe the best guesses of avid catch-and-release fly anglers on a message board. I'll check back in when I have decided which way I'm going to lean.”



Ah Hmmmm……this statement is based on the assumption that the FBC regulations and stream designations are based solely on scientific / biologic data, and with the sole objective of optimizing both the size of the trout population and maintaining a natural size / year-class distribution of the trout, and not based, at least in part, on satisfying the majority of anglers that buy licenses and fund the entire system.

I do agree that the PFBC are indeed experts and have a tremendous knowledge of the fisheries and the fish, but I don’t believe that very many their decisions are based solely on science; rightfully so in some cases, and wrongfully so in others.
 
The statement I made wasn't based on the assumption about why the regs are in place on this stream; rather, it was based upon the information I have about those who, on the one hand, read the data as showing that habitat constraints account for a drop-off in 14+" trout versus those who, on the other hand, read the data as suggesting that allowing harvest at 14" is the explanation for the drop-off. I'm still deciding who to put my faith in.
 
Jack,

From my read, many of the posters in this thread are not agreeing or disagreeing with the FBC assessment of the reason for the drop off of trout at the 14” size, just “wouldn’t it be nice” if they made the SR section C&R, just to find out if the trout size limitations are caused by the habitat limitations or by the regulations.

IMO, many times the FBC feels that it is easier NOT to a prove things that may beneficial to the streams / fish, because what they find out the may not be popular with the wishes of the majority of anglers / boaters (their sole source of funding).

I always remember that the FBC is there to care for the streams and rivers of PA, AND serve their customers to assure repeat sales. The two must always be balanced in some way; it’s just a matter of your belief as to how much their policies should be tilted and in which direction.
 
Great post afishinado.

That's the point here Jack, its not that we doubt the knowledge of the folks at the PFBC, but the reality is - the two competing interests ("care for the streams and rivers of PA" and "serve their customers to assure repeat sales") are very often in conflict and they must make a choice as to how to balance the two. Unfortunately for folks like me, the C&R angler is not their ONLY customer.
 
well said :-D
 
I think, then, you are both* seeing in the discussion what you want to see. The results were posted; some praise was lavished on the stream; then afishinado suggested it was a possibility that cropping was occuring and that is another explanation for the 14" drop-off. Sal said he was "thinking the same thing" and then by means of rolling eyes emoticon, insinuated once again the unspoken accusation of the broad conspiracy the PFBC conducts to screw catch and release anglers; next comes two claims of "anecdotal evidence" of alleged cropping.

It was at this point that I showed the Spring Creek results, suggesting for consideration that 14"+ trout in small or medium sized (though extremely fertile) streams may not be capable of sustaining the same high population as smaller, but still decent-sized trout, etc. Each of my replies have focused on that issue-- that is, whether the drop-off of 14"+ fish is more likely to be the result of typical trout stream dynamics or the nefarious effects of permitting harvest of large trout.

Now, if each of your alls' replies, etc., were really just arguments about what "would be nice" to have as regs on that stream, I apologize, but then I would humbly suggests that you owe me as much an apology for saying something (at least until just now) that was entirely different.

* now I can include Sal, too. Will Ken join soon?
 
you know in all my years on this board i have finally come to the conclusion that flyfisherman feel the need to debate everything and analize every little thing.

Is it Jack that prehap[s you are seeing that in this post and then are reading into what you expect to see.Yes i rolled my eyes. I have been flyfishing pa for 26 years now and can tell you the PFBC has let me and the resource down a heck of alot more than they have lifted us up. so as a conditioning yes i doubt thier motives.

what exactly can you include me into?

All im saying is i see alot of could be , may be in thier evidence. Be nice to know for once if it is harvest or habitat. Only one way to tell.....and that is a study. i see nothing wrong with that. Jack we will always continue to have these arguements until someone really studies it.

My point was not to get into a regs debate but rather say hey look at this stream on our side of the state. Something is going right...................EVGEN WITH THE CURRENT REGS.

Regaurdless, im tired of having to explain my opinion on here. from now on im posting once and done...take what you like from my post and leave the rest. You guys are just making me tired anymore.
 
p.s i apologize for making you make me justify my opinion

classy jayL disclaimer: that was a joke :-D
 
Speaking of classy, Sal, that new avatar is certainly a flash of high culture.
 
thought it was actually very fitting. ;-)
 
Sal, some would say the idiot is the one that keeps referencing an internet argument days after it's over.

Especially when his posts are largely incoherent.

IT WAS A JOKE. I CAN MAKE ALL THE PERSONAL ATTACKS I WANT, AS LONG AS I SAY IT WAS A JOKE. :lol: ROFL LOLWTFBBQ !!!!11! ;-)
 
Back to the original topic; I'm surprised the fish population was as high as it was with all the poaching there. It won't be long until it's like the Saucon. The poachers don't discriminate on fish size so the 14 inch argument is mute. As mentioned part of the problem is below the dam is stocked water in a city park and above the dam is the special regs area. Many, especially the kids, just keep fishing above the dam and keep just about anything they catch.
 
ok im going to set the record straight once and for all.


Jack,

as for all the people of the board you are the most challenging. Your opinions are generally consistant anbd make me think. There are many times that you have made me consider a viewpoint i never thought of.

JayL,

I never once attacked you in that thread actually you attacked me. I never called you a name or eluded to your class or even age. As you did to me. I have seen entire threads be erased for less than you did. But becuase its me...it wasent. Thats ok though i can except that. In fact i have gained 3 times the respect for you because you spoke your mind and told me what you thought of me. Now its my turn you can think that my posts are incohernt but i think you sound bloated and frankly very arrogent at times. Thats fine because you a generally intelligent and the fact i continue to argue with you should lead you to believe that you are not an idiot as my avatar states. I just thought it was funny given the circumstance. No i dont change my opinions, in fact Jack has even commented that i generally am not waiving on my viewpoints. Then again since your this last post...i might have to stop argueing with you. you keep proving me wrong.

The entire p.s was a joke and again you didnt get it ...im starting to not become suprised.
 
franklin,

if there is a fair amount of poaching and harvesting of not legal size fish, then prehaps that is a good reason for the 14 inch fish disappearing. Sounds like some local flyfisherman should fish the water some and put a stop to that behavior with some WCO's. As far as the dam that would be a habitat issue. im taking it your talking about icks mill?
 
Sal - yes - illicks mill is the place. I've personally ran into kids a few time fishing with bait on that section and reminded them of the regulations.
 
Yes, Illick's Mill. I see people catching some fish in the lower stocked area and then go up to the special regulation area and catch a few more. They often keep the catch in a plastic bag. So later how would you prove which fish and how many came from which side of the dam? I think they mostly stock rainbows below and the wild trout are brown. But that's not enough to prove anything since there are some browns below the dam.
 
you would have to catch them in the act. that would be the only way to get them. the other hard part would be how old are they....be hard to get a WCO on a 6 year old :p either way that is a shame and short of catching them in the process there would be absolutely no way to catch them.
 
It never hurts to speak to the younger poachers. Half the time they didn't know better and the other half, they just need someone to remind them of what is right. I usually tell an angler fishing outside of the regulations that they are doing so and explain why. You don't have to be combative, more like a kindly teacher or preacher. Sometimes saying, "If you get caught, the fine can be expensive," is an appropriate way to give them something to think about. If they get biligerent, just walk away, but pull your cell phone out and either make a call to the WCO or let them think you did.
 
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